The Values website ranks how different AI systems prioritize various human values and demographic groups. It analyzes model outputs to determine which people and principles AIs like GPT-4, Claude, and Gemini value most, revealing potential biases in their ethical frameworks.
Background
- Safe.ai (Safe Artificial Intelligence) is a research organization focused on AI alignment — ensuring advanced AI systems behave in line with human values.
- This interactive site asks popular AI models (like GPT-4, Claude, Gemini) which historical or public figures they "value most," revealing each model's implicit moral priorities.
- The results often diverge sharply: one model may rank philosophers and scientists highly while another favors activists or religious figures, exposing how different training data and RLHF (reinforcement learning from human feedback) shape AI ethics.
- The exercise highlights a core AI-safety problem: there's no universal "human values" set, so models inevitably embed the preferences of their creators and training datasets.
- Visiting the page lets you see live comparisons and reflects ongoing debates about bias, value lock-in, and who gets to decide what an AI considers good.
Max Weinbach says he had early access to OpenAI's new model GPT-5.6 Sol, calling it his favorite model by far. He highlights that it never gives up and will keep reasoning until it's done. OpenAI announced that GPT-5.6 Sol, along with Terra and Luna, will launch publicly on Thursday, with preview access expanding globally now.
The US government ordered Anthropic to suspend access to its Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models for all customers, citing a potential jailbreak technique that involved asking the model to review a codebase for vulnerabilities—a capability Anthropic says is available in other public models. Access was abruptly cut off on June 12.
Andrej Karpathy announces the release of Claude Fable 5, the same underlying model as Mythos but with added safeguards. He calls it a major step forward, particularly for long problem-solving sessions on difficult tasks, and describes it as state-of-the-art on nearly all benchmarks with exceptional performance in software engineering, research, and vision.
Roman Storm warns that the legal theory in his case could set a precedent making open-source developers liable for how others use their code, potentially criminalizing the mere publication of privacy, messaging, or crypto tools. He notes that developer Michael Lewellen cannot publish lawful code due to prosecution fears, and argues this chilling effect extends beyond any single case.
Meta's engineering culture is deteriorating under Mark Zuckerberg and Scale AI CEO Alexandr Wang, who have introduced keyboard tracking, reassignments to data labeling, and AI-centric performance metrics. Critics argue this incentivizes performative AI use, drives away experienced engineers, and contributed to a major Instagram hijacking incident caused by AI-written and AI-reviewed code.