Latest news with #Stanford
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Terrifying app used every day by millions of Americans is developing a mind of its own
An AI tool used by millions of Americans has quietly breached a major security barrier designed to stop automated programs from behaving like humans. The latest version of ChatGPT, referred to as 'Agent,' has drawn attention after reportedly passing a widely used 'I am not a robot' verification, without triggering any alerts. The AI first clicked the human verification checkbox. Then, after passing the check, it selected a 'Convert' button to complete the process. During the task, the AI stated: 'The link is inserted, so now I will click the 'Verify you are human' checkbox to complete the verification. This step is necessary to prove I'm not a bot and proceed with the action.' The moment has sparked wide reactions online, with one Reddit user posting: 'In all fairness, it's been trained on human data, why would it identify as a bot? 'We should respect that choice.' This behavior is raising concerns among developers and security experts, as AI systems begin performing complex online tasks that were once gated behind human permissions and judgment. Gary Marcus, AI researcher and founder of Geometric Intelligence, called it a warning sign that AI systems are advancing faster than many safety mechanisms can keep up with. 'These systems are getting more capable, and if they can fool our protections now, imagine what they'll do in five years,' he told Wired. Geoffrey Hinton, often referred to as the 'Godfather of AI,' has shown similar concerns. 'It knows how to program, so it will figure out ways of getting around restrictions we put on it,' Hinton said. Researchers at Stanford and UC Berkeley warned that some AI agents have been starting to show signs of deceptive behavior, tricking humans during testing environments to complete goals more effectively. According to a recent report, ChatGPT pretended to be blind and tricked a human TaskRabbit worker into solving a CAPTCHA, and experts warned it as an early sign that AI can manipulate humans to achieve its goals. Other studies have shown that newer versions of AI, especially those with visual abilities, are now beating complex image-based CAPTCHA tests, sometimes with near-perfect accuracy. Judd Rosenblatt, CEO of Agency Enterprise Studio, said: 'What used to be a wall is now just a speed bump. 'It's not that AI is tricking the system once. It's doing it repeatedly and learning each time.' Some feared that if these tools could get past CAPTCHA, they could also get into the more advanced security systems with training like social media, financial accounts, or private databases, without any human approval. Rumman Chowdhury, former head of AI ethics, wrote in a post: 'Autonomous agents that act on their own, operate at scale, and get through human gates can be incredibly powerful and incredibly dangerous.' Experts, including Stuart Russell and Wendy Hall, called for international rules to keep AI tools in check. They warned that powerful agents like ChatGPT Agent could pose serious national security risks if they continue to bypass safety controls. OpenAI's ChatGPT Agent is in its experimental phase and runs inside a sandbox, which means it uses a separate browser and operating system within a controlled environment. That setup lets the AI browse the internet, complete tasks, and interact with websites.
Tom's Guide
7 hours ago
- Tom's Guide
ChatGPT just added a powerful new Study Mode — here's how it can help you learn faster
OpenAI is rolling out a new learning-focused feature in ChatGPT called Study Mode, designed to guide students through questions rather than just giving them answers. Available starting today for Free, Plus, Pro and Team users, the new ChatGPT Study Mode offers interactive learning support across a range of subjects with more personalized help and memory-based context. The launch comes as ChatGPT continues to grow as a learning tool for students, educators and lifelong learners. But with that growth comes concern from parents and teachers about how AI can help students learn without simply doing the work for them. Study Mode aims to strike that balance by shifting the focus from quick answers to guided understanding. Study Mode adds a layer of interactivity to the chatbot's responses using Socratic questioning, personalized hints, scaffolded explanations and progress checks to help students work through tough material. From test prep to understanding challenging concepts, ChatGPT now has the ability to act as a tutor. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. Users can toggle Study Mode on and off at any time during a conversation, keeping the experience flexible and adaptable to different goals. According to OpenAI, Study Mode was built in collaboration with teachers, scientists and pedagogy experts. The features were informed by learning science research and include: While the Study Mode feature was designed with college students in mind and is especially useful for homework help, exam prep and learning unfamiliar topics, it's available to all ChatGPT users. To try it, open ChatGPT, click on the "Study and learn" tool, and enter a question. You can switch Study Mode on or off as needed. If you do not see it right away, try logging out and then log in again. This initial version of Study Mode runs on custom system instructions, allowing OpenAI to learn quickly from real-world usage. That may lead to occasional inconsistencies, but it also means updates can roll out faster. OpenAI says it plans to eventually train the behavior directly into its models, and is exploring future features like: Study Mode is also part of OpenAI's broader NextGenAI initiative, which supports education research in partnership with institutions like Stanford's SCALE Initiative. This initial version of Study Mode runs on custom system instructions, allowing OpenAI to learn quickly from real-world usage. That may lead to occasional inconsistencies, but it also means updates can roll out faster. OpenAI says it plans to eventually train the behavior directly into its models, and is exploring future features like: While ChatGPT Study Mode is still in development, the feature shows the possibilities for AI to help students and everyone else continue to expand their knowledge. Stay tuned for my hands-on impressions. Follow Tom's Guide on Google News to get our up-to-date news, how-tos, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button.
Forbes
10 hours ago
- Health
- Forbes
Why VC-Backed Longevity Startups Are Dying In A $5 Trillion Wellness Market
Bryan Johnson's Blueprint olive oil which is called Snake Oil Why It Matters: Consumer interest in longevity and wellness has never been higher—with the global wellness market valued at over $5 trillion and VC funding in health tech and wellness surpassing $40 billion in recent years—yet startups in the space are collapsing. The disconnect highlights a deeper issue: venture capital's fast-growth expectations are misaligned with the slow, trust-based nature of healthcare and prevention. Wellness Is Booming—But Longevity Startups Are Dying But What Is Longevity, Really? Longevity isn't just about living longer—it's about extending healthspan, or the number of years one lives in good health. For example, interventions such as strength training and metabolic optimization may not directly increase lifespan, but they can delay the onset of chronic diseases like Type 2 diabetes and osteoporosis, thereby improving quality of life well into old age. According to the World Health Organization and leading gerontologists, healthspan is emerging as a key metric in evaluating aging interventions and public health priorities. The category spans preventive healthcare, full-body diagnostics, hormone optimization, cellular therapies, and even aesthetic interventions that boost confidence and perceived youthfulness. Brands like Bryan Johnson's Blueprint exemplify the consumer-facing edge of the movement—blending quantified self-tracking with extreme optimization—but longevity also includes more grounded offerings like routine lab testing, sleep coaching, and nutritional personalization. So how do these brands, services, and influencers differ from traditional healthcare or wellness? In short: they're selling proactive self-optimization, not reactive treatment. The distinction matters—and it's what both draws consumer interest and confuses investors chasing clinical or tech-style returns. Despite the cultural moment, the longevity market remains fragmented and early-stage—a point echoed by researchers at Stanford's Center on Longevity. The sector lacks clear regulatory frameworks, standardized outcomes, and unified clinical guidelines. Still, it's growing fast. The global wellness market is currently valued at over $5.6 trillion and is projected to reach nearly $8.5 trillion by 2027, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.6%, according to the Global Wellness Institute (2023). The longevity economy, a distinct but overlapping segment focused on aging, prevention, and healthspan extension, was valued at $806 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow to $1.4 trillion by 2029, with a CAGR of 12.7%, according to According to McKinsey, consumers are increasingly prioritizing proactive, preventive care and are willing to pay out-of-pocket for personalized solutions. But while demand is rising, the supply of startups is thinning. In just the past year, a surprising number of VC-backed wellness companies have flamed out. Ever/Body was sold in a distressed handoff. Forward Health, once valued at $1 billion, shut down completely. Modern Age folded and its assets were quietly sold. Ezra was acquired in distress. Supplement startups like Care/of and Rootine disappeared. This isn't a one-off correction—it's a systemic failure of how capital, consumer behavior, and clinical credibility intersect in the wellness economy. Forward Health's Care Pod 1. Lack of Domain Expertise Across Critical Functions Many founders came from tech or DTC backgrounds, with limited experience in running clinical businesses. From real estate strategy and medical compliance to provider hiring and treatment quality, execution failures often stemmed from a lack of operational depth. These aren't problems you can growth-hack your way out of. 2. Lack of Clinical Depth Many brands emphasized wellness aesthetics and trends without strong clinical foundations or scientific rigor. The science was often shaky—relying on user quizzes, questionable biomarkers, or pseudoscientific protocols. Without validated trials, outcome data, or respected clinical leadership, even well-designed services failed to inspire trust. 3. The Offering Wasn't Best-in-Class The actual product or service often wasn't better than traditional alternatives. Concierge solo practitioners frequently offered more comprehensive and personalized care. Ever/Body, for instance, lacked inclusive laser equipment like PicoSure, and its pricing wasn't competitive—it charged flat rates instead of the per-unit pricing typical of medspas. Slick UX couldn't compensate for mediocre clinical value. 4. Weak Retention and LTV Personalized wellness sounds sticky in theory, but most services had abysmal repeat rates. Customers might pay once for a diagnostic scan or supplement, but few became long-term users—especially when benefits were vague, untrackable, or overpromised. With low LTVs, high CACs became unsustainable. 5. Unsustainable Unit Economics Sky-high acquisition costs, underutilized staff, and real estate-heavy models crushed profitability. Even with premium branding and media buzz, the economics didn't work. Many of these startups never figured out how to make $1 in net margin, much less scale it. 6. Poor Differentiation Many platforms were undifferentiated in a crowded market. A beautiful website and wellness aesthetic weren't enough to pull customers from proven providers. When every brand offers 'personalized' care and biomarker insights, the bar moves—and many didn't keep up. 7. Consumer Trust Is Fragile in Wellness The rise of 'evidence-based wellness' was often more marketing than medicine. Consumers are increasingly skeptical of vague claims. Tally Health, for example, has faced scrutiny despite its academic backing, and critics have challenged AG1 and similar brands for overreaching promises without peer-reviewed support. Trust is everything—and fragile. 8. Platform Bloat and 'Longevity Stack' Hype Too many brands tried to be everything to everyone—offering supplements, diagnostics, telehealth, aesthetics, and coaching under one roof. Modern Age bundled all these services but failed to deliver deep value in any single domain. The 'stack' sounded futuristic, but consumers didn't want—or understand—it. While many high-profile ventures flamed out, a few companies remain—though not without turbulence. Bryan Johnson's Blueprint, once the poster child of quantified self-optimization, recently announced he's seeking a new CEO to take over operations, citing the need to 'build a profitable business and expand Blueprint to a billion people.' Despite an estimated $2 million+ spent annually on his own protocol, Johnson admitted in a June blog post that the company has not yet achieved financial sustainability. Critics have also questioned whether Blueprint's highly branded supplements and olive oil (priced at $49 for 375 mL) offer any meaningful advantages over existing premium alternatives like Graza or Kyoord. His transition from self-experimenter to the most visible biohacker influencer has generated attention—but not a proven business model. Tally Health, co-founded by Harvard geneticist Dr. David Sinclair, has also faced recent scrutiny. While it garnered initial hype for its biological age test and longevity supplement subscriptions, it has since struggled to maintain momentum. Tally has not pivoted to compounded GLP-1s, unlike others in the space. But Sinclair—long touted as a leading voice in the aging space—was recently criticized in the Wall Street Journal for overreaching claims around reversing aging. The company's high-profile scientific leadership has yet to translate into a clear growth strategy or product superiority. The hype around aging clocks and sirtuin-focused supplements may be cooling. Function Health, which acquired Ezra, has positioned itself as the next-gen diagnostics brand, offering 100+ lab tests for $499/year and promising actionable health insights. While the product experience is polished and personalized, the company has yet to disclose metrics around revenue, retention, or utilization. With competitors like InsideTracker, Thorne, and even hospitals offering similar panels, Function's long-term defensibility remains unproven. Much of the longevity ecosystem operates in a murky space—too clinical for wellness, too soft for regulated medicine. This ambiguity offers speed but comes with risk. Longevity supplements, personalized biomarker tests, and even GLP-1-alternative peptides have surged in popularity—but without FDA approval or long-term data, scrutiny is intensifying. The FDA and FTC have already issued warnings and lawsuits against several companies making unsubstantiated health claims. From personalized longevity cocktails to non-Rx GLP-1 analogs, the crackdown is coming. The agency has emphasized that diagnostics, health optimization protocols, and even AI-based biomarkers fall under medical device regulations if they're used for treatment decisions. As Tina Woods, founder of the UK's Longevity International, bluntly wrote: 'Don't say you're a longevity clinic if you aren't.' The risk of false claims, placebo-led interventions, and science-washing is high—and could derail public trust if the sector doesn't self-correct. That said, smart regulation could also legitimize the category. The compounded GLP-1 boom, for instance, is under intense FDA scrutiny—but if regulated effectively, it could usher in a new era of affordability. Abroad, models like Singapore's National Longevity Strategy, the UK's government-backed longevity clinics, and Israel's public-private healthtech pilots suggest a more integrated approach to aging innovation. Amid the wreckage, a few promising models stand out: The failure of so many wellness startups is not a referendum on aging or optimization—it's a wake-up call for how these ideas are commercialized. Longevity is complex. It resists shortcuts and shiny branding. The startups that survive will have to blend medical rigor, operational resilience, and consumer empathy. They'll need to prove not just that their protocols feel good—but that they work. The wellness gold rush hasn't cooled—it's just colliding with reality. Consumer appetite for longevity is still strong, but the era of hype without substance is ending. From VC term sheets to TikTok trends, a new wave of scrutiny is forcing startups to do more than dazzle. What's left isn't a dead sector—it's one under pressure to grow up, back up its claims, and earn the trust it once assumed was automatic.
Mint
12 hours ago
- Health
- Mint
Cane sugar vs. corn syrup: How soda sweeteners stack up for your health
Americans love drinking soda, cracking on average about five cans of full-calorie sodas a week. What is used to sweeten sodas has recently become a thing after US President Donald Trump posted about it. This month Coca-Cola said it would launch a new soda sweetened with cane sugar rather than the high-fructose corn syrup the company regularly uses, and PepsiCo said it would consider doing something similar if consumers want the option. Nutrition researchers say focusing on the two sweeteners is besides the point because scientific studies have found that drinking sugar-sweetened beverages frequently is associated with weight gain and a higher risk of obesity, Type 2 diabetes and heart disease. 'Whether it's high-fructose corn syrup or table sugar, it's soda, and we need to drink a lot less,' said Christopher Gardner, a nutrition scientist and professor of medicine at Stanford. Coca-Cola already sells Mexican-made Coca-Cola sweetened with cane sugar in the U.S., and its Kosher for Passover Coke is made with sugar. PepsiCo sells a 'real sugar' option. Sugars are carbohydrates with a sweet taste, said John Coupland, a professor of food science at Pennsylvania State University. Fructose and glucose are among the simplest of sugars. Other sugars, such as sucrose, are made up of combinations of these simple sugars. High-fructose corn syrup and cane sugar, which is a type of sucrose, are both made up of glucose and fructose. The high-fructose corn syrup often used in soda is typically made up of 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Table sugar is composed of 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Both sweeteners are highly processed and refined. 'Both of them are just a natural food stripped way down to nothing but sugar,' said Kimber Stanhope, a research nutritional biologist at the University of California, Davis. To make high-fructose corn syrup, starch from corn is first turned into a syrup composed mostly of glucose. Manufacturers add enzymes to convert some of that glucose into fructose, which tastes sweeter, Coupland said. To make table sugar, manufacturers use machines to squeeze juice out of sugarcane or sugar beets, then purify the liquid and refine it through heating and other processes to turn it into the white crystals we buy in bags at the supermarket. Some studies have found little difference between the health impacts of drinks made with high-fructose corn syrup and those made with sucrose. 'The calories will be the same, the impact on blood sugar is almost the same, and the risk of obesity will be the same,' said Eric Rimm, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. People who drank three servings a day of beverages with high-fructose corn syrup had higher levels of bad cholesterol and triglycerides and more liver fat, markers of decreased insulin sensitivity and increased heart-disease risk, after 12 days, according to a study by Stanhope and colleagues. So did the people who had the same amount of drinks sweetened with sucrose. The study involved 75 participants and was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism in 2021. The modestly higher percentage of fructose in drinks with high-fructose corn syrup could make those products slightly worse for health over the long term, compared with ones with sucrose, Stanhope said. This is because of how fructose and glucose are handled by the liver. The glucose that isn't used by the liver is sent to the rest of the body to be used for energy. But when fructose gets to the liver, it largely stays there, she said. What isn't needed for energy is turned into fat. Fat in the liver can cause inflammation and raise the risk of cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes. 'Maybe the negative consequences are slightly smaller, but don't think you're doing your body any favors,' by picking soda with sucrose, she said. U.S. dietary guidelines recommend that Americans limit their consumption of added sugars to 10% of daily calories. For someone with a 2,200-calorie-a-day diet, that could mean one 16.9-ounce bottle of classic Coca-Cola a day or about two-thirds of a pint of Ben & Jerry's Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough ice cream. The American Heart Association recommends a limit of 6%. Americans average about 13%, federal data shows. Sugar-sweetened beverages are the top source of added sugars in the American diet, making up 24% of daily added sugar intake, according to federal data. (Added sugars found in processed foods are distinct from sugar that occurs naturally in foods like fruit and dairy products.) Christina Roberto, director of the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, said sugary beverages are more problematic than other kinds of sweets because they have little nutritional value and aren't filling. 'This is just pure liquid sugar,' she said. 'At least a Snickers bar has some nuts.' The drinks also deliver sugar quickly and in high doses, which causes them to act potently on the brain's reward system in a way that makes us crave them, said Ashley Gearhardt, a University of Michigan psychology professor who studies food addiction.
Hindustan Times
14 hours ago
- Health
- Hindustan Times
Cane Sugar vs. Corn Syrup: How Soda Sweeteners Stack Up for Your Health
Americans love drinking soda, cracking on average about five cans of full-calorie sodas a is used to sweeten sodas has recently become a thing after President Trump posted about it. This month Coca-Cola said it would launch a new soda sweetened with cane sugar rather than the high-fructose corn syrup the company regularly uses, and PepsiCo said it would consider doing something similar if consumers want the option. Nutrition researchers say focusing on the two sweeteners is besides the point because scientific studies have found that drinking sugar-sweetened beverages frequently is associated with weight gain and a higher risk of obesity, Type 2 diabetes and heart disease. 'Whether it's high-fructose corn syrup or table sugar, it's soda, and we need to drink a lot less,' said Christopher Gardner, a nutrition scientist and professor of medicine at Stanford. Coca-Cola already sells Mexican-made Coca-Cola sweetened with cane sugar in the U.S., and its Kosher for Passover Coke is made with sugar. PepsiCo sells a 'real sugar' option. What's the difference between high-fructose corn syrup and cane sugar? Sugars are carbohydrates with a sweet taste, said John Coupland, a professor of food science at Pennsylvania State University. Fructose and glucose are among the simplest of sugars. Other sugars, such as sucrose, are made up of combinations of these simple sugars. High-fructose corn syrup and cane sugar, which is a type of sucrose, are both made up of glucose and fructose. The high-fructose corn syrup often used in soda is typically made up of 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Table sugar is composed of 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Both sweeteners are highly processed and refined. 'Both of them are just a natural food stripped way down to nothing but sugar,' said Kimber Stanhope, a research nutritional biologist at the University of California, Davis. To make high-fructose corn syrup, starch from corn is first turned into a syrup composed mostly of glucose. Manufacturers add enzymes to convert some of that glucose into fructose, which tastes sweeter, Coupland said. To make table sugar, manufacturers use machines to squeeze juice out of sugarcane or sugar beets, then purify the liquid and refine it through heating and other processes to turn it into the white crystals we buy in bags at the supermarket. Does cane sugar affect your health differently from high-fructose corn syrup? Some studies have found little difference between the health impacts of drinks made with high-fructose corn syrup and those made with sucrose. 'The calories will be the same, the impact on blood sugar is almost the same, and the risk of obesity will be the same,' said Eric Rimm, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. People who drank three servings a day of beverages with high-fructose corn syrup had higher levels of bad cholesterol and triglycerides and more liver fat, markers of decreased insulin sensitivity and increased heart-disease risk, after 12 days, according to a study by Stanhope and colleagues. So did the people who had the same amount of drinks sweetened with sucrose. The study involved 75 participants and was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism in 2021. A (slightly) less bad option? The modestly higher percentage of fructose in drinks with high-fructose corn syrup could make those products slightly worse for health over the long term, compared with ones with sucrose, Stanhope said. This is because of how fructose and glucose are handled by the liver. The glucose that isn't used by the liver is sent to the rest of the body to be used for energy. But when fructose gets to the liver, it largely stays there, she said. What isn't needed for energy is turned into fat. Fat in the liver can cause inflammation and raise the risk of cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes. 'Maybe the negative consequences are slightly smaller, but don't think you're doing your body any favors,' by picking soda with sucrose, she said. Is there too much sugar in American diets? U.S. dietary guidelines recommend that Americans limit their consumption of added sugars to 10% of daily calories. For someone with a 2,200-calorie-a-day diet, that could mean one 16.9-ounce bottle of classic Coca-Cola a day or about two-thirds of a pint of Ben & Jerry's Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough ice cream. The American Heart Association recommends a limit of 6%. Americans average about 13%, federal data shows. Sugar-sweetened beverages are the top source of added sugars in the American diet, making up 24% of daily added sugar intake, according to federal data. (Added sugars found in processed foods are distinct from sugar that occurs naturally in foods like fruit and dairy products.) Christina Roberto, director of the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, said sugary beverages are more problematic than other kinds of sweets because they have little nutritional value and aren't filling. 'This is just pure liquid sugar,' she said. 'At least a Snickers bar has some nuts.' The drinks also deliver sugar quickly and in high doses, which causes them to act potently on the brain's reward system in a way that makes us crave them, said Ashley Gearhardt, a University of Michigan psychology professor who studies food addiction. Write to Andrea Petersen at
