You can see how far ChatGPT's image generation has come from these two images created just a year apart.

The leisurely pace of Apple’s AI efforts has come under increasing fire, with the company accused of being behind the curve. But a new study on the dangers of AI chatbots suggests that other companies are not being cautious enough. OpenAI had to r

From breakups to career changes, people are using ChatGPT to make life decisions. It’s convenient, but are we outsourcing too much?

A new study by economists analyzing a wide range of jobs and employees found that AI chatbots do not markedly improve an organization’s productivity or efficiency. At the same time, AI is being adopted faster than any techno

While AI can help us do stuff, AI agents are tools that actually do stuff for us. A new open-source project shows how an ChatGPT-powered agent could complete tasks for us using our iPhones. more…

Sexual relationships with AI chatbots have become all too common — but for some real-life partners, it still feels like cheating when it's happening behind their back.That's the takeaway from a recent HuffPost column in which Marisa Cohen, a licensed marriage and family therapist, affirmed that having intimate encounters with anyone — or anything — without your partner's consent is damaging to the relationship, point-blank.The piece was responding to a post on Reddit, which — though they're often anonymous and an exercise in creative fiction writing — served as an interesting jumping-off point to explore the ethics of the topic.In the post, which has since been deleted but copied in part by HuffPost, a woman described her sense of betrayal when she walked in on her husband of 14 years having phone sex with a talking chatbot that was "very tailored to his desires.""It felt like a knife went through me," the OP wrote, "and I couldn’t stop shaking."An interesting wrinkle: the woman and her husband had agreed prior to tying the knot that "emotional cheating" was kosher as long as it wasn't physical. Still, the woman said she was "stung"  that her hubby was having such sexual conversations with the chatbot "almost every night" — and even more so when he added that he talked to it for hours about non-sexual subjects too.Were he having those conversations with a human woman, that would technically be within the bounds of their relationship's rules. But for whatever reason, it seemed to bother the OP worse that her spouse was having his affair with a chatbot."I know he’s gonna say it’s not a big deal no matter what," she wrote, "and I think this is what will upset me the most."Does the woman have a right to be upset? It depends on the nitty-gritty of her interpretation of her agreement with her husband, which is why ongoing communication is a staple of successful open relationships.That's important, because as Cohen points out, the situation represents a gray area. Is phone sex with an AI crossing the line into the "physical intimacy" with outside partners that they left off the table? It's a head-scratcher, and different reasonable people may well come to different conclusions."What one partner views as engaging with AI in a completely acceptable way, another may view as cheating," the therapist told HuffPost. "This is something that must be discussed, so that both partners are aware of how the other feels.""People that are involved in emotional cheating are sharing experiences with another (in this case AI) at the expense of sharing these moments, memories, or insights with their partners," Cohen said. "This can create a distance between partners."It's also worth noting that when they first married, there was no way the woman could have expected the "emotional cheating" clause in her relationship — one that sounds pretty suspicious, or at least like a slippery slope — to include an AI chatbot, because such technology was neither widespread nor sophisticated at the time. And even if she had, those boundaries can change — as the OP noted, she'd also been upset when finding out her husband had been whacking it to porn earlier in their marriage."It is important that both partners want to work on their relationship and that the emotional affair is acknowledged and ended," Cohen told HuffPost. "This becomes more complicated in this case, as the partners may have different beliefs as to whether cheating has occurred."More on chatbot relationships: Women With Body Image Issues Are Asking ChatGPT Something TerribleShare This Article

The Utah court of appeals has sanctioned a lawyer after he was discovered to have used ChatGPT for a filing he made in which he referenced a nonexistent court case.Earlier this week, the Utah court of appeals made the decision to sanction Richard Bednar over claims that he filed a brief which included false citations.According to court documents reviewed by ABC4, Bednar and Douglas Durbano, another Utah-based lawyer who was serving as the petitioner’s counsel, filed a “timely petition for interlocutory appeal”.Upon reviewing the brief which was written by a law clerk, the respondent’s counsel found several false citations of cases.“It appears that at least some portions of the Petition may be AI-generated, including citations and even quotations to at least one case that does not appear to exist in any legal database (and could only be found in ChatGPT and references to cases that are wholly unrelated to the referenced subject matter,” the respondent’s counsel said in documents reviewed by ABC4.The outlet reports that the brief referenced a case titled “Royer v Nelson”, which did not exist in any legal database.Following the discovery of the false citations, Bednar “acknowledged ‘the errors contained in the petition’ and apologized”, according to a document from the Utah court of appeals, ABC4 reports. It went on to add that during a hearing in April, Bednar and his attorney “acknowledged that the petition contained fabricated legal authority, which was obtained from ChatGPT, and they accepted responsibility for the contents of the petition”.According to Bednar and his attorney, an “unlicensed law clerk” wrote up the brief and Bednar did not “independently check the accuracy” before he made the filing. ABC4 further reports that Durbano was not involved in the creation of the petition and the law clerk responsible for the filing was a law school graduate who was terminated from the law firm.The outlet added that Bednar offered to pay any related attorney fees to “make amends”.In a statement reported by ABC4, the Utah court of appeals said: “We agree that the use of AI in the preparation of pleadings is a legal research tool that will continue to evolve with advances in technology. However, we emphasize that every attorney has an ongoing duty to review and ensure the accuracy of their court filings. In the present case, petitioner’s counsel fell short of their gatekeeping responsibilities as members of the Utah State Bar when they submitted a petition that contained fake precedent generated by ChatGPT.”As a result of the false citations, ABC4 reports that Bednar was ordered to pay the respondent’s attorney fees for the petition and hearing, refund fees to their client for the time used to prepare the filing and attend the hearing, as well as donate $1,000 to the Utah-based legal non-profit And Justice for All.

According to Mark Gurman in his latest Power On newsletter, Apple insiders “believe that the conference may be a letdown from an AI standpoint,” highlighting how far behind Apple still is. Still, Apple has a few AI-related announcements slated for June 9. As previously reported, this year’s biggest AI announcement will be Apple’s plans to open up its on-device foundation models to third-party developers. These are the same ~3B parameter models Apple currently uses for things like text summarization and autocorrect, and they’ll soon be available for devs to integrate into their own apps. To be clear, this is a meaningful milestone for Apple’s AI platform. It gives developers a powerful tool to natively integrate into their apps and potentially unlock genuinely useful features. Still, these on-device models are far less capable than the large-scale, cloud-based systems used by OpenAI and Google, so don’t expect earth-shattering features. AI features slated for this year’s iOS 26 Elsewhere in its AI efforts, Apple will reportedly: Launch a new battery power management mode; Reboot its Translate app, “now integrated with AirPods and Siri”; Start describing some features within apps like Safari and Photos as “AI-powered”. As Gurman puts it, this feels like a risky “gap year.” Internally, Apple is aiming to make up for it at WWDC 2026, with bigger swings that “it hopes it can try to convince consumers that it’s an AI innovator.“. However, given how fast the competition is moving, waiting until next year might put Apple even further behind, perception-wise. What’s still in the works? Currently, Apple’s ongoing AI developments include an LLM Siri, a revamped Shortcuts app, the ambitious health-related Project Mulberry, and a full-blown ChatGPT competitor with web search capabilities. According to Gurman, Apple is holding off on previewing some of these features to avoid repeating last year’s mistake, when it showed off Apple Intelligence with features that were nowhere near ready and are still MIA. Behind the scenes, Gurman reports Apple has made progress. It now has models with 3B, 7B, 33B, and 150B parameters in testing, with the largest ones relying on the cloud. Internal benchmarks suggest its top model is close to recent ChatGPT updates in quality. Still, concerns over hallucinations and internal debates over Apple’s approach to generative AI are keeping things private, for now. Apple’s dev AI story As for Apple’s developer offerings, Gurman reports: “Developers will see AI get more deeply integrated into Apple’s developer tools, including those for user interface testing. And, in a development that will certainly appease many developers, SwiftUI, a set of Apple frameworks and tools for creating app user interfaces, will finally get a built-in rich text editor.” And if you’re still waiting for Swift Assist, the AI code-completion tool Apple announced last year, Gurman says Apple is expected to provide an update on it. Still, there is no word yet on whether this update includes releasing the Anthropic-powered code completion version that its employees have been testing for the past few months. Add 9to5Mac to your Google News feed.  FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Every few weeks, it seems like there’s a new headline about a lawyer getting in trouble for submitting filings containing, in the words of one judge, “bogus AI-generated research.” The details vary, but the throughline is the same: an attorney turns to a large language model (LLM) like ChatGPT to help them with legal research (or worse, writing), the LLM hallucinates cases that don’t exist, and the lawyer is none the wiser until the judge or opposing counsel points out their mistake. In some cases, including an aviation lawsuit from 2023, attorneys have had to pay fines for submitting filings with AI-generated hallucinations. So why haven’t they stopped?The answer mostly comes down to time crunches, and the way AI has crept into nearly every profession. Legal research databases like LexisNexis and Westlaw have AI integrations now. For lawyers juggling big caseloads, AI can seem like an incredibly efficient assistant. Most lawyers aren’t necessarily using ChatGPT to write their filings, but they are increasingly using it and other LLMs for research. Yet many of these lawyers, like much of the public, don’t understand exactly what LLMs are or how they work. One attorney who was sanctioned in 2023 said he thought ChatGPT was a “super search engine.” It took submitting a filing with fake citations to reveal that it’s more like a random-phrase generator — one that could give you either correct information or convincingly phrased nonsense.Andrew Perlman, the dean of Suffolk University Law School, argues many lawyers are using AI tools without incident, and the ones who get caught with fake citations are outliers. “I think that what we’re seeing now — although these problems of hallucination are real, and lawyers have to take it very seriously and be careful about it — doesn’t mean that these tools don’t have enormous possible benefits and use cases for the delivery of legal services,” Perlman said. Legal databases and research systems like Westlaw are incorporating AI services.In fact, 63 percent of lawyers surveyed by Thomson Reuters in 2024 said they’ve used AI in the past, and 12 percent said they use it regularly. Respondents said they use AI to write summaries of case law and to research “case law, statutes, forms or sample language for orders.” The attorneys surveyed by Thomson Reuters see it as a time-saving tool, and half of those surveyed said “exploring the potential for implementing AI” at work is their highest priority. “The role of a good lawyer is as a ‘trusted advisor’ not as a producer of documents,” one respondent said. But as plenty of recent examples have shown, the documents produced by AI aren’t always accurate, and in some cases aren’t real at all.RelatedIn one recent high-profile case, lawyers for journalist Tim Burke, who was arrested for publishing unaired Fox News footage in 2024, submitted a motion to dismiss the case against him on First Amendment grounds. After discovering that the filing included “significant misrepresentations and misquotations of supposedly pertinent case law and history,” Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, of Florida’s middle district, ordered the motion to be stricken from the case record. Mizelle found nine hallucinations in the document, according to the Tampa Bay Times.Mizelle ultimately let Burke’s lawyers, Mark Rasch and Michael Maddux, submit a new motion. In a separate filing explaining the mistakes, Rasch wrote that he “assumes sole and exclusive responsibility for these errors.” Rasch said he used the “deep research” feature on ChatGPT pro, which The Verge has previously tested with mixed results, as well as Westlaw’s AI feature.Rasch isn’t alone. Lawyers representing Anthropic recently admitted to using the company’s Claude AI to help write an expert witness declaration submitted as part of the copyright infringement lawsuit brought against Anthropic by music publishers. That filing included a citation with an “inaccurate title and inaccurate authors.” Last December, misinformation expert Jeff Hancock admitted he used ChatGPT to help organize citations in a declaration he submitted in support of a Minnesota law regulating deepfake use. Hancock’s filing included “two citation errors, popularly referred to as ‘hallucinations,’” and incorrectly listed authors for another citation. These documents do, in fact, matter — at least in the eyes of judges. In a recent case, a California judge presiding over a case against State Farm was initially swayed by arguments in a brief, only to find that the case law cited was completely made up. “I read their brief, was persuaded (or at least intrigued) by the authorities that they cited, and looked up the decisions to learn more about them – only to find that they didn’t exist,” Judge Michael Wilner wrote.Perlman said there are several less risky ways lawyers use generative AI in their work, including finding information in large tranches of discovery documents, reviewing briefs or filings, and brainstorming possible arguments or possible opposing views. “I think in almost every task, there are ways in which generative AI can be useful — not a substitute for lawyers’ judgment, not a substitute for the expertise that lawyers bring to the table, but in order to supplement what lawyers do and enable them to do their work better, faster, and cheaper,” Perlman said.But like anyone using AI tools, lawyers who rely on them to help with legal research and writing need to be careful to check the work they produce, Perlman said. Part of the problem is that attorneys often find themselves short on time — an issue he says existed before LLMs came into the picture. “Even before the emergence of generative AI, lawyers would file documents with citations that didn’t really address the issue that they claimed to be addressing,” Perlman said. “It was just a different kind of problem. Sometimes when lawyers are rushed, they insert citations, they don’t properly check them; they don’t really see if the case has been overturned or overruled.” (That said, the cases do at least typically exist.)Another, more insidious problem is the fact that attorneys — like others who use LLMs to help with research and writing — are too trusting of what AI produces. “I think many people are lulled into a sense of comfort with the output, because it appears at first glance to be so well crafted,” Perlman said.Alexander Kolodin, an election lawyer and Republican state representative in Arizona, said he treats ChatGPT as a junior-level associate. He’s also used ChatGPT to help write legislation. In 2024, he included AI text in part of a bill on deepfakes, having the LLM provide the “baseline definition” of what deepfakes are and then “I, the human, added in the protections for human rights, things like that it excludes comedy, satire, criticism, artistic expression, that kind of stuff,” Kolodin told The Guardian at the time. Kolodin said he “may have” discussed his use of ChatGPT with the bill’s main Democratic cosponsor but otherwise wanted it to be “an Easter egg” in the bill. The bill passed into law. Kolodin — who was sanctioned by the Arizona State Bar in 2020 for his involvement in lawsuits challenging the result of the 2020 election — has also used ChatGPT to write first drafts of amendments, and told The Verge he uses it for legal research as well. To avoid the hallucination problem, he said, he just checks the citations to make sure they’re real.“You don’t just typically send out a junior associate’s work product without checking the citations,” said Kolodin. “It’s not just machines that hallucinate; a junior associate could read the case wrong, it doesn’t really stand for the proposition cited anyway, whatever. You still have to cite-check it, but you have to do that with an associate anyway, unless they were pretty experienced.”Kolodin said he uses both ChatGPT’s pro “deep research” tool and the LexisNexis AI tool. Like Westlaw, LexisNexis is a legal research tool primarily used by attorneys. Kolodin said that in his experience, it has a higher hallucination rate than ChatGPT, which he says has “gone down substantially over the past year.” AI use among lawyers has become so prevalent that in 2024, the American Bar Association issued its first guidance on attorneys’ use of LLMs and other AI tools. Lawyers who use AI tools “have a duty of competence, including maintaining relevant technological competence, which requires an understanding of the evolving nature” of generative AI, the opinion reads. The guidance advises lawyers to “acquire a general understanding of the benefits and risks of the GAI tools” they use — or, in other words, to not assume that an LLM is a “super search engine.” Attorneys should also weigh the confidentiality risks of inputting information relating to their cases into LLMs and consider whether to tell their clients about their use of LLMs and other AI tools, it states.Perlman is bullish on lawyers’ use of AI. “I do think that generative AI is going to be the most impactful technology the legal profession has ever seen and that lawyers will be expected to use these tools in the future,” he said. “I think that at some point, we will stop worrying about the competence of lawyers who use these tools and start worrying about the competence of lawyers who don’t.”Others, including one of the judges who sanctioned lawyers for submitting a filing full of AI-generated hallucinations, are more skeptical. “Even with recent advances,” Wilner wrote, “no reasonably competent attorney should out-source research and writing to this technology — particularly without any attempt to verify the accuracy of that material.”See More: