OpenAI CEO Sam Altman warns of an AI ‘fraud crisis'
'A thing that terrifies me is apparently there are still some financial institutions that will accept a voice print as authentication for you to move a lot of money or do something else — you say a challenge phrase, and they just do it,' Altman said. 'That is a crazy thing to still be doing… AI has fully defeated most of the ways that people authenticate currently, other than passwords.'
The comments were part of his wide-ranging interview about the economic and societal impacts of AI at the Federal Reserve on Tuesday. He also told the audience, which included, representatives of large US financial institutions, about the role he expects AI to play in the economy.
His appearance comes as the White House is expected to release its 'AI Action Plan' in the coming days, a policy document to outline its approach to regulating the technology and promoting America's dominance in the AI space.
OpenAI, which provided recommendations for the plan, has ramped up its presence on and around Capitol Hill in recent months.
On Tuesday, the company confirmed it will open its first Washington, DC, office early next year to house its approximately 30-person workforce in the city. Chan Park, OpenAI's head of global affairs for the US and Canada, will lead the new office alongside Joe Larson, who is leaving defense technology company Anduril to become OpenAI's vice president of government.
The company will use the space to host policymakers, preview new technology, and provide AI trainings, for example, to teachers and government officials. It will also house research into AI's economic impact and how to improve access to the technology.
Despite Altman's warnings about the technology's risks, OpenAI has urged the Trump administration to avoid regulation it says could hamper tech companies' ability to compete with foreign AI innovations. Earlier this month, the US Senate voted to strike a controversial provision from Trump's agenda bill that would have prevented states from enforcing AI-related laws for 10 years.
Altman isn't alone in worrying that AI will supercharge fraud.
The FBI warned about these AI voice and video 'cloning' scams last year. Multiple parents have reported that AI voice technology was used in attempts to trick them out of money by convincing them that their children were in trouble. And earlier this month, US officials warned that someone using AI to impersonate Secretary of State Marco Rubio's voice had contacted foreign ministers, a US governor and a member of Congress.
'I am very nervous that we have an impending, significant, impending fraud crisis,' Altman said.
'Right now, it's a voice call; soon it's going be a video or FaceTime that's indistinguishable from reality,' Altman said. He warned that while his company isn't building such impersonation tools, it's a challenge the world will soon need to confront as AI continues to evolve. Altman is backing a tool called The Orb, built by Tools for Humanity, that says it will offer 'proof of human' in a world where AI makes it harder to distinguish what, and who, is real online.
Altman also explained what keeps him up at night: the idea of bad actors making and misusing AI 'superintelligence' before the rest of the world has advanced enough to defend against such an attack — for example, a US adversary using AI to target the American power grid or create a bioweapon. That comment could speak to fears within the White House and elsewhere on Capitol Hill about China outpacing US tech companies on AI.
Altman also said he worries about the prospect of humans losing control of a superintelligent AI system, or giving the technology too much decision-making power. Various tech companies, including OpenAI, are chasing AI superintelligence — and Altman has said he thinks the 2030s could bring AI intelligence far beyond what humans are capable of — but it remains unclear how exactly they define that milestone and when, if ever, they'll reach it.
But Altman said he's not as worried as some of his peers in Silicon Valley about AI's potential impact on the workforce, after leaders such as Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and Amazon CEO Andy Jassy have warned the technology will take jobs.
Instead, Altman believes that 'no one knows what happens next.'
'There's a lot of these really smart-sounding predictions,' he said, ''Oh, this is going to happen on this and the economy over here.' No one knows that. In my opinion, this is too complex of a system, this is too new and impactful of a technology, it's very hard to predict.'
Still, he does have some thoughts. He said that while 'entire classes of jobs will go away,' new types of work will emerge. And Altman repeated a prediction he's made previously that if the world could look forward 100 years, the workers of the future probably won't have what workers today consider 'real jobs.'
'You have everything you could possibly need. You have nothing to do,' Altman said of the future workforce. 'So, you're making up a job to play a silly status game and to fill your time and to feel useful to other people.'
The sentiment seems to be that Altman thinks we shouldn't worry about AI taking jobs because, in the future, we won't really need jobs anyway, although he didn't detail how the future AI tools would, for example, reliably argue a case in court or clean someone's teeth or construct a house.
In conjunction with Altman's speech, OpenAI released a report compiled by its chief economist, Ronnie Chatterji, outlining ChatGPT's productivity benefits for workers.
In the report, Chatterji — who joined OpenAI as its first chief economist after serving as coordinator of the CHIPS and Science Act in the Biden White House — compared AI to transformative technologies such as electricity and the transistor. He said ChatGPT now has 500 million users globally.
Among US users, 20% use ChatGPT as a 'personalized tutor' for 'learning and upskilling,' according to the report, although it didn't elaborate on what kinds of things people are learning through the service. Chatterji also noted that more than half of ChatGPT's American users are between the ages of 18 and 34, 'suggesting that there may be long-term economic benefits as they continue to use AI tools in the workplace going forward.'
Over the next year, Chatterji plans to work with economists Jason Furman and Michael Strain on a longer study of AI's impact on jobs and the US workforce. That work will take place in the new Washington, DC, office.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
a few seconds ago
- Associated Press
What's known and not yet known about the Justice Department's scrutiny of Trump-Russia probe origins
WASHINGTON (AP) — News that Attorney General Pam Bondi is moving to criminally investigate the Obama-era origins of the Trump-Russia investigation means that one of the most studied, and politically polarizing, chapters of modern American history will be under the microscope yet again. Here's a look at what's known and not yet known about the latest Justice Department revelation: A saga with a long backstory Perhaps no issue continues to aggravate President Donald Trump more than the assessment by intelligence officials that Russia interfered in the 2016 election on his behalf and the investigation by law enforcement into whether his campaign colluded with Moscow to tip the outcome of the contest. Robert Mueller, the former FBI director tapped as special counsel by Trump's first Justice Department to investigate, found that Russia had waged a multi-prong operation in Trump's favor and that the Republican president's campaign welcomed the aid. But Mueller did not find sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign. As president for a second time, Trump has made no secret of his desire to use the Justice Department as a weapon of retribution against perceived political adversaries he sees as having smeared him, including by calling for Obama-era officials to be jailed. And his administration, now more broadly and across multiple agencies, has been engaged in a effort to reopen the long-accepted conclusion — including among prominent Republicans — of Russian interference and to scrutinize the officials involved in reaching that assessment. A Bondi grand jury directive Bondi, a Trump loyalist, has directed Justice Department prosecutors to present evidence related to the Russia inquiry to a grand jury. Grand juries are tools used by prosecutors to issue subpoenas for records and prosecutors and to produce indictments based on the evidence they receive. The bar is low for an indictment given that the presentation of evidence by prosecutors is one-sided, though grand juries do have the option to decline to indict and have done so in the past. A person familiar with the matter confirmed Bondi's directive to The Associated Press but key questions remain. It was not disclosed, for instance, which prosecutors are pursuing the investigation, where the grand jury that might hear evidence is located and whether and when law enforcement officials might seek to bring criminal charges. The Justice Department, in an unusual statement last month, appeared to confirm the existence of an investigation into former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director James Brennan but provided no details or specifics. Potential targets of probe remain unclear It's not clear who might be targeted in the investigation, but the Trump administration has been aggressively challenging intelligence community conclusions about Russia's actions and intentions that had long ago seemed settled. It's been a welcome diversion for the administration as it confronts a wave of criticism from Trump's base and conservative influencers over the handling of records from the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation. In the last month, Trump administration officials and allies have released a series of documents aimed at casting doubt on the extent of interference and at portraying the original Russia investigation as an Obama administration frame-job. The documents have been hailed as incontrovertible proof of a conspiracy, but a close inspection of the records shows they fall well short of that. Among the documents released by Tulsi Gabbard, the administration's director of national intelligence, are emails from 2016 showing that Obama administration officials recognized in 2016 that Russians had not hacked state election systems to manipulate votes in favor of Trump. But the absence of evidence that votes were switched — something the Obama administration never alleged — has no bearing on the ample evidence of other forms of Russia interference, including a hack-and-leak operation involving Democratic emails and a covert social media campaign aimed at sowing discord and spreading disinformation. Last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released a previously classified annex of a 2023 report by John Durham, the special counsel appointed by the first Trump administration to hunt for government misconduct in the Russia probe. The annex included a series of emails, including one from July 2016 that was purportedly sent by a senior staffer at a philanthropic organization founded by billionaire investor George Soros, that referred to a plan approved by then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to falsely link Trump to Russia. But Durham's own report took pain to note that investigators had not corroborated the communications as authentic and said the best assessment was that the message was 'a composites of several emails' the Russians had obtained from hacking — raising the likelihood that it was a product of Russian disinformation. Fresh scrutiny has also centered around the intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference, which was published in January 2017. An annex in a classified version of the assessment contained a summary of the so-called Steele dossier — a compilation of opposition research that included uncorroborated rumors and salacious gossip about Trump and Russia. The latest in a series of investigations Just as Russian interference has been heavily scrutinized, so too has the U.S. government's response to it. Multiple government reports, including not only from Mueller but also a Republican-led Senate intelligence committee that included current Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have documented Russia's activities in sweeping details. To be sure, reports from the Justice Department inspector general and Durham also identified significant flaws in the FBI's Russia investigation, including errors and omissions in applications the Justice Department submitted to a secretive surveillance court to eavesdrop on a national security adviser to the 2016 Trump campaign. But Durham found no criminal wrongdoing among government officials, bringing three criminal cases — two against private citizens that resulted in acquittals at trial and a third against a little-known FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to doctoring an email. It is unclear if there is any criminal wrongdoing that exists that Durham, who launched his investigation in 2019 and concluded it four years later, somehow missed during his sprawling inquiry.
CBS News
a few seconds ago
- CBS News
Baltimore County executive claims sanctuary jurisdiction designation is a mistake
Baltimore County is listed as Maryland's only sanctuary jurisdiction in the Department of Justice's (DoJ) list of locations that it claims have policies that "impede enforcement of federal immigration statutes and regulations." It comes amid the Trump administration's continued crackdown on illegal immigration in the U.S. Baltimore County Executive Kathy Klausmeier believes the county was erroneously included in the list, and said the Office of Law is contacting the DoJ to "correct this mistake." "Public safety remains a top priority, where we practice community policing – an approach proven to enhance safety by encouraging cooperation with law enforcement at varying levels," Klausmeier said in a statement. "We will continue to support our valued law enforcement personnel while following federal, state, and local laws." The Justice Department shared the list on Tuesday, saying the designations were chosen after a review of laws, ordinances and executive directives in the listed locations. According to the DoJ, a location is designated as a sanctuary jurisdiction if it publicly declares itself as such, if they have laws or regulations that "obstruct or limit local law enforcement cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)," or if it limits whether local agencies share information about the immigration status of detainees with federal authorities. The DoJ also describes sanctuary jurisdictions as those that prohibit the use of funds for federal immigration enforcement, those that train government employees and law enforcement to enforce sanctuary policies and those that do not honor ICE detainer requests. Further, the department listed locations as sanctuary jurisdictions if they restrict ICE officials from interviewing detainees without consent, if they create offices to help migrants "evade federal law enforcement officers," or if they avoid federal laws that prevent migrants from receiving certain benefits. The list will be re-evaluated on a regular basis to include or remove jurisdictions that change their policies or laws, the department said. Each listed location will have a chance to respond to its designation, according to the DoJ. The list follows President Trump's April executive order, called Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens. The measure directs the DoJ and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to publish a list of locations that "continue to use their authority to violate, obstruct, and defy the enforcement of federal immigration laws," according to the Justice Department. Under the executive order, the Office of Management and Budget was ordered to identify federal funds, grants and contracts that can be terminated or suspended in designated sanctuary jurisdictions. The measure also directs the DHS to pursue legal action and enforcement measures for locations that remain sanctuary jurisdictions after local officials are notified of the designation. In April of 2024, before President Trump's second term, Baltimore County launched the Welcoming and Belonging Strategic Plan, which served as a guide for welcoming "new residents from around the world who are eager to share their values, build new connections, and use their talents to make our county safer, stronger, and more prosperous." The plan came after community meetings between migrants and county leaders. In March 2025, the Baltimore County Board of Education passed a measure to protect students who are migrants after a high school teacher allegedly posted to social media saying he would expose his students who attended an immigration rally. The measure ensures that migrant students have the right to access programs in the district without intimidation. The measure also affirmed the board's commitment to protecting student privacy. In April, Maryland lawmakers passed a similar measure, the Maryland Values Act, which identified sensitive locations – like schools and churches – and determined how they can respond if immigration officials show up. The law also created privacy protections for migrants' data. The Department of Homeland Security shared a similar list in June, though it listed eight Maryland counties and 10 Maryland cities as sanctuary jurisdictions. The list has since been removed from the DHS website, but it included the following: Cities Counties Several state and local leaders responded to the DHS's list, including Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, who said, "By definition, Baltimore is not a sanctuary city, because we do not have jurisdiction over our jails. We follow our limited obligations as defined under federal immigration law." Leaders from both Anne Arundel and Howard counties said they are in compliance with federal immigration laws.
Forbes
a few seconds ago
- Forbes
How Trump Uses Oil As An Economic Weapon In The Ukraine-Russia War
One of U.S. President Donald Trump's foremost campaign promises was to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. It's now August, the eighth month of the administration, and the war rages on. It appears that the administration has chosen the field on which it wishes to fight this battle, it's in China and India. Early in the conflict, the Biden Administration placed sanctions on Russia's oil. According to the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air, these sanctions were largely ineffective, as the oil was simply redirected to China, India, and Turkey. If that wasn't bad enough, Turkey's Ceyhan port then took those Russian oil products and sent them to the EU. At the end of 2022, the G7 chose to impose a $60 price cap on Russian oil. According to the U.S. Treasury, the purpose of the price cap was to restrict the price Russians could fetch for their oil without removing those barrels from the market. This would reduce Russia's profits while still maintaining oil flows and preventing a price shock. The response from China and India to the oil price cap was to purchase even more discounted oil from Russia. In May 2023, the Institute for Energy Research reported record purchases of oil by the two nations, a total of 110 million barrels for the month, which was up 10% from the prior month. China and India, being heavily dependent on oil imports and ranking first and third respectively, will seize any opportunity to purchase cheap oil in the market. Prior to Trump entering the White House, the Biden administration did make some efforts to discourage these countries from the continued purchases of the discounted oil. There was a renewed threat of sanctions coupled with offers to assist India in finding alternative sources, but these attempts never panned out. The sanctions on Russian oil, combined with the price caps, were not a failure, they just did not bring about an end to the conflict. Although sanctions on Russian oil did not end the war in Ukraine, the impact was felt throughout the country as oil revenues declined by 50% year over year, according to Bruegel, a think tank specializing in economic policy research. This significant revenue decline brought about cuts to social services like healthcare and education, in addition, public pensions were frozen, and inflation rose to 12%. This strain on social services has caused protests to break out around the country, most notably in 2024. How President Donald Trump Is Changing Oil Markets Donald Trump took office in January 2025, and by his third day in office, he was asking the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to increase oil production. Most of the overt reasoning around this was about lowering gas prices and decreasing U.S. inflation. The secondary result was placing even more pressure on Russia. Trump threatened 100% tariffs on China on August 1 if the Chinese did not stop purchasing Russian oil. Then the U.S. president threatened India, via a Truth Social post, with more tariffs if India didn't follow suit as well. This is all possible because OPEC has just announced another production increase of 574,000 barrels of oil a day, which brings the total OPEC increase to 2.2 million barrels a day from the start. There is a myriad of ways all of this can play out, and none of them are good for most American consumers. We have now entered a phase of this negotiation where Trump's efforts to strong-arm Chinese and Indian leaders into redirecting their oil import flows could significantly impact the U.S. economy and U.S. consumers. Economists may debate the actual impact of these tariffs on the consumer, but there is no doubt it will be felt, it is only the degree and severity of it still in question. Much like in the Middle East in previous decades, oil markets now play a pivotal role in global military conflicts and their prospective resolution.
