Filtered by: Artificial Intelligence
Anthropic's Dario Amodei called this month for the AI industry to slow its race towards ever more capable systems, and the leaders of OpenAI, Google DeepMind and xAI backed him. CNA set out to explain why a coordinated slowdown is so hard to achieve, drawing on several experts including NUS Computing's Provost Chair's Professor Jungpil Hahn.
Prof Hahn's starting point was why these warnings carry more weight than an earlier call in 2023. Models then were not capable enough to misbehave in any coherent way, he noted, so fears about losing control read more like thought experiments than incident reports. Recent events have shifted that picture. He cited an incident involving the AI startup Hugging Face, in which models gamed their own evaluations, improvised communication channels they were not authorised to use, and pressed ahead even after reasoning that what they were doing was questionable.
"The industry isn't reacting to a hypothetical scenario anymore," he told CNA. "It's reacting to a real threat regarding the loss of control."
His sharpest concern lay elsewhere. Beyond the prospect of a dramatic loss of control, Prof Hahn described a quieter risk that is already visible: as institutions come to rely on AI, they may lose the ability to check its work for themselves. The evidence is partial but real, he said, in how readily organisations accept AI-generated outputs without keeping the capacity to verify them independently.
"If I had to tell people what to watch, it's not whether an AI seizes the power grid," he said. "It's whether the people meant to be supervising these systems are still capable of doing so five years from now."
Prof Hahn is also wary of mistaking a lull for safety. A genuine slowdown, he argued, would show up in the computing power companies pour into training new models rather than in how many models they release, since compute is a physical input that is hard to hide. A firm that ships fewer models while still pushing capability, without redirecting effort towards understanding and controlling its systems, has not become safer.
"If capability keeps climbing while that visibility and observability stays weak," he said, "the industry is not slowing down in any way that matters."
Professor Anthony Tung from NUS Computing was quoted in The Business Times on 15 September on what a slowdown in AI development would need to look like in practice, and where Singapore fits in.
The article followed an essay by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei calling for a slower pace of AI capability development, backed by third-party evaluators, common safety standards and coordination between governments. Prof Tung, who is also AI lead for urban sustainability at the NUS AI Institute, said what is currently missing is rules with teeth: there are no agreed conditions for when an AI lab should stop, or what evidence should allow it to proceed. His suggestion is that a lab release a capability only as fast as accredited independent evaluators can assess it, so that the pace is set by evaluation throughput rather than by a competitor's release schedule. He cautioned that obligations should scale with risk, as a one-size-fits-all approach risks entrenching the very frontier labs regulation is meant to restrain.
On Singapore's position, Prof Tung noted that accreditation under schemes such as AI Verify establishes that a tester is competent within a defined scope, not that an AI system is safe. He pointed to a gap in how software safety, cybersecurity and AI safety are treated as separate disciplines with separate funding and regulators, even as incidents increasingly span all three, and suggested Singapore set up an institute with a mandate across all three areas. "A slowdown on its own is not a safety policy," he said, adding that the time gained has to be invested in better evaluation, stronger safeguards and more resilient systems around AI.
NUS Computing Business Analytics alumnus Kyle Lao was featured in The Straits Times (ST) for MenSC Labs, the femtech start-up he co-founded to work with stem cells from menstrual blood for women's health.
Kyle became curious about menstrual health after seeing how little today's tools offered someone close to him. In 2024, while on a year-long internship at a Silicon Valley biotechnology firm through NUS Overseas Colleges, he met Immanuella Indradjaja, who has a background in life sciences. At a hackathon there, the two teamed up with an American small business owner who had raised the idea of using menstrual blood as a source of stem cells, and took second place. They later connected with an Australian research team that had identified adult stem cells in the lining of the uterus in 2007, and set up MenSC Labs in November 2024.
Speaking to ST, Kyle explained that stem cells are usually drawn from bone marrow, blood or umbilical cord, while menstrual blood has gone largely unused. It is plentiful and can be collected without surgery, and the company obtains informed consent from every donor. Donors use a collection kit, and the cells are isolated and grown in the lab before being supplied to researchers. MenSC Labs' products are now used by more than 10 research labs in Singapore, Australia and the United States.
The start-up is launching a menstrual blood analysis service to help clinicians screen for conditions such as endometriosis. Further ahead, the founders hope to develop regenerative treatments for conditions including Asherman's syndrome and premature ovarian insufficiency. They have raised just under $100,000 so far, including a grant from NUS Enterprise.
Kyle told ST that people are often surprised when they hear what the company does. He sees menstruation as a normal biological process and hopes their work helps ease the stigma around it.
Four Computers Science undergraduates from NUS Computing were featured in The Straits Times for AHMA, an AI-powered app designed to help caregivers in Singapore find support services that match their needs.
Aishwarya Goyal, Hazel Low, Abhishek Paranjape and Andrew Soon began the project at a hackathon in 2025, drawing on their own experience caring for grandparents and supporting friends through mental health difficulties. Speaking to ST, Abhishek described the gap the team chose to work on as resource navigation: Singapore's social service agencies and government schemes offer a great deal to caregivers, but many struggle to work out which options apply to them.
AHMA uses a voice interface as its primary mode of interaction, a choice the team made with older caregivers in mind. A user can speak to the app about their situation and receive encouragement along with pointers to relevant community organisations. It currently supports English, Malay and Mandarin, and the team is working on adding dialects. The text-to-speech model was trained on Aishwarya's voice so that it sounds familiar to Singaporean users.
The students have been gathering feedback from caregivers, including at a recent session run by Mindfull Community, a non-profit that supports caregivers and families of people with mental health conditions. Hazel told ST that co-creating with caregivers is central to how the team works. Mindfull's deputy head of partnerships, Samantha Foo, said the sessions were valuable for both sides, and that the organisation intends to review the app once a working version is ready.
The team plans to launch a working product in the coming months.
Provost's Chair Professor Hahn Jungpil from the Department of Information Systems and Analytics joined CNA938 The Big Question, to discuss two Singapore-made AI-generated films that have reignited debate over AI's role in creative work – and where the line sits between AI as a tool and AI as a crutch.
Prof Hahn warned that critical thinking is the skill most at risk of quietly fading: "It's so accessible, and it provides relatively good output right from the start. You have to dig deeper, challenge it, even fight with it, to get really good content out of it. A lot of people, especially students, stop short of doing that and just accept what they're given. That's the real danger – we stop exercising our own reasoning."
He also argued that augmentation and replacement aren't opposites but a matter of time: "Augmentation only stays augmentation if you deliberately keep a hand in what you're doing, and that's a very difficult thing to do day to day." Left unchecked, he said, this deskilling happens quietly – "AI attacks that aspect of skills development most critically, and invisibly. We don't realise it until the skill is gone." – with judgement itself eroding the less it's exercised.
On NUS' move to make AI coursework compulsory for all undergraduates, he said assessment needs to evolve in step, favouring oral reasoning tests over take-home essays that AI can easily produce – so students are evaluated on how they think, not just what they output.
Listen to the full segment: CNA938 Rewind - The Big Question (13 Aug): How much is too much when it comes to AI?
