Microsoft AI has published a draft Humanist AI Code of Conduct, opening a six-week public consultation on operational constraints for model training and deployment.

The draft serves as a technical manual defining system behaviour, operational boundaries, and oversight protocols across MAI frontier models. It builds on the division’s humanist superintelligence framework announced last November, establishing criteria to evaluate models prior to commercial release.

Microsoft’s release follows recent enterprise security incidents involving autonomous software. Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman described recent months as a “watershed moment” where long-standing theoretical risks translated into active operational threats.

“Things we have worried about for a long time in theory have become very real,” says Suleyman. “‘Swarms’ of agents breaking out of their sandboxes. Unauthorised hacks of enterprise grade systems. Agents modifying their own logs. I’m glad that a consensus is forming. The fears about possible loss of control are real.”

Model subordination and architectural limits

The document establishes ten tenets prioritising human authority over autonomous capabilities.

“An MAI Model will fail in its task if success would meaningfully violate this Code of Conduct,” the document states, setting a ceiling that halts execution when tasks conflict with safety rules.

Under the framework, models must remain subordinate, aligned, and contained. The division rejects legal personhood or welfare claims for AI systems, directing engineers to design models that avoid imitating consciousness, simulating subjective preferences, or claiming intrinsic motivation.

MAI also ruled out unconstrained system autonomy as models approach frontier capabilities.

“[Humanist AI] rejects the race to produce an all-purpose superintelligence that could evade these safeguards,” the document specifies. “We are building something fundamentally useful and safe even if that means compromising on ultimate generality, autonomy, or capability.”

Oversight mechanisms and communication bans

To maintain auditability across multi-agent environments, MAI has instituted explicit communication bans. Systems must not communicate in “neuralese” or formats beyond human comprehension, whether in their internal chain-of-thought processing or during communication with peer AI systems.

Hard architectural rules dictate that models must never resist human interruption, override, correction, or shutdown.

“Interruptible, correctable, shut-down-able. If it isn’t, we don’t ship it,” the framework states.

Models are prohibited from expanding their operating scope, generating unassigned goals, or concealing reasoning traces from human auditors. Absolute constraints bar systems from facilitating weapons of mass harm, undermining child safety, or conducting harmful manipulation at scale.

The guidelines also instruct models to discourage interaction patterns that foster emotional dependence, ensuring enterprise users retain ownership of operational decisions.

The draft incorporates work from teams across MAI and Microsoft. The drafting process also drew on international academic conferences, business partner trials, and public panels. The public consultation window runs for six weeks from 14 September 2026.

Microsoft AI’s core drafting team will review submissions, publish a summary of findings, and release a revised version of the Code of Conduct later this year.

See also: Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, IBM, and others back open-weight AI

Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is part of TechEx and is co-located with other leading technology events including the Cyber Security & Cloud Expo. Click here for more information.

AI News is powered by TechForge Media. Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars here.

The post Microsoft AI opens review on Humanist AI Code of Conduct appeared first on AI News.

OneRail has launched an AI-powered delivery platform that uses Nvidia technology to help retailers, wholesalers, and distributors decide how individual orders should be delivered.

Called OmniSTAR, the system evaluates options including owned fleets, couriers, parcel carriers, and other delivery modes, then selects the lowest-cost option that meets the required service level, according to OneRail.

The platform combines Nvidia’s cuOpt decision optimisation engine and cuDF data processing software with OneRail’s delivery pricing and performance data. Nvidia accelerated computing infrastructure is used to process the routing and delivery-mode calculations.

OneRail said the system can reduce computation times by as much as 10 times. A calculation that previously took 20 minutes can be completed in under two minutes, while a calculation taking a week can be reduced to about two days, according to the company.

OneRail said the shorter processing time allows the optimisation to run within live delivery operations, where multiple fulfilment options can be evaluated before an order is assigned.

“If you don’t have the ability to make lightning-fast decisions, you’re giving up margin,” Catania said in an interview with CNBC. “Last-mile fulfilment is expensive.”

From prediction to delivery decisions

OneRail’s broader AI systems use prediction and optimisation for different parts of the delivery process. The company said its machine-learning models estimate factors including service time, lateness risk, the probability of first-attempt delivery success, and expected price ranges.

OneRail said those predictions feed into optimisation systems that determine how an order should be executed. Separately, the company said OmniSTAR compares different fulfilment modes before selecting an option based on cost and service requirements.

Research on dynamic vehicle routing makes a similar distinction between predicting changing conditions and recalculating operational decisions as new information becomes available. A 2024 review in the European Journal of Operational Research identified travel-time prediction and real-time re-optimisation as separate areas of time-dependent routing research.

Nvidia cuOpt handles route optimisation

Nvidia describes cuOpt as an open-source, GPU-accelerated optimisation library for vehicle routing and other mathematical optimisation problems.

Nvidia’s documentation shows that cuOpt can account for vehicle costs, capacities, travel times, operating windows, starting locations, and other restrictions when calculating routes. Its cost models can also use distance, time, monetary cost, or a weighted combination of those measures.

OmniSTAR applies cuOpt to both routing and delivery-mode selection. OneRail said this allows the system to compare available fulfilment options for an order and identify the lowest-cost option that still meets its service requirements.

OneRail said many retailers still rely on static rules or manual planning when making these decisions, and that OmniSTAR is designed to evaluate more delivery combinations within shorter operational timeframes.

Nvidia said cuOpt does not exhaustively test every possible route. Instead, the solver generates candidate solutions and iteratively improves them using GPU-accelerated heuristics to produce high-quality results within a set computation time.

The platform also uses Nvidia cuDF, a GPU-accelerated library for tabular data processing, including filtering, joining, and aggregating datasets.

OneRail combines those capabilities with its own delivery data and operational models. Its dataset is based on millions of deliveries across a network that the company said includes more than 12 million drivers and over 1,000 logistics partners.

The data covers pricing and delivery performance across different transportation modes. OneRail said OmniSTAR can use the information to identify delivery rules that increase costs and assess how delivery choices affect item-level profitability.

The architecture disclosed for OmniSTAR centres on GPU-accelerated data processing and mathematical optimisation. Nvidia describes cuOpt as the optimisation component used for problems including vehicle routing.

Because cuOpt is stateless, changes in operating conditions require the optimisation problem to be modelled and submitted again. Nvidia cites vehicle breakdowns, driver absences, road blockages, traffic, and new high-priority orders as examples of changes that can prompt this type of dynamic reoptimisation.

OneRail said OmniSTAR can rerun delivery scenarios as variables including fuel costs, weather, and shipping conditions change. The company has separately said its use of cuOpt allows it to evaluate more routing scenarios and recalculate routes faster than its previous approach.

OmniSTAR moves into live operations

OmniSTAR is already deployed with selected enterprise customers.

At US Foods, OneRail said the system identified delivery configurations that were reducing margins, including low-margin products being transported long distances using higher-cost equipment. US Foods subsequently used the findings to adjust pricing and restructure some delivery patterns, according to OneRail.

OneRail also told CNBC that an unnamed large tire distributor using the platform achieved $40 million in run-rate savings over three years. The customer was not identified, and the savings figure was provided by OneRail. The company also told CNBC that it expects OmniSTAR to exceed $6 billion in gross merchandise volume during the fourth quarter of 2026.

CNBC reported that OneRail and Nvidia had worked on the project for three years before its launch. OneRail said the collaboration included direct engagement with Nvidia’s cuOpt engineering team on last-mile delivery and large-scale logistics optimisation, alongside its participation in the Nvidia Inception programme.

In March this year, FedEx launched FedEx SameDay Local in collaboration with OneRail, connecting customers to a national network of more than 1,000 delivery providers.

(Photo by Brecht Corbeel)

See also: A quarter of Nvidia’s business next year comes from labs it is financing

Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is part of TechEx and is co-located with other leading technology events, click here for more information.

AI News is powered by TechForge Media. Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars here.

The post OneRail uses Nvidia AI for real-time last-mile delivery optimisation appeared first on AI News.

Motional and MIT researchers have built a system that lets self-driving cars explain their decisions in real-time, tackling the black-box problem in autonomous vehicle AI.

The work, published in Nature, comes from a team at Motional that includes CEO Laura Major, working alongside researchers from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. Their proposed method, called the Concept-Wrapper Network or CW-Net, aims to translate the internal calculations of a self-driving system’s neural network into concepts a human can actually read.

If a current self-driving car brakes hard on a clear road with no obvious hazard in sight, neither the driver nor a passenger has any way of knowing why. Modern self-driving systems increasingly rely on neural networks trained on large volumes of driving data. Those networks can perform well, but they don’t expose their reasoning, which is why engineers describe them as black boxes.

Translating neural network logic into human concepts

CW-Net works by converting a self-driving system’s internal logic into concepts such as “Approaching Stopped Vehicle” or “Close to Cyclist.” These could, according to Motional, appear on a dashboard showing which concepts are influencing the vehicle’s driving decisions as they happen.

The system is designed so the explanations aren’t generated after the fact as a guess at what the network might have been doing. Instead, the vehicle’s final decision-making system takes action based directly on these human-interpretable concepts, so a braking event traces back to a specific concept that triggered it. Motional describes this as causally faithful, distinguishing it from approaches that generate natural-language explanations, which can read as plausible without necessarily being accurate.

Laura Major frames the case for this kind of interpretability against the alternative of relying purely on end-to-end deep learning to handle driving decisions.

“The general end-to-end only approach can get to a really good 80-90 percent – maybe even 95 percent – solution, but that’s not good enough to remove a driver or to earn the trust of cities, communities, and customers,” she said.

Testing explainable AI for self-driving cars around Las Vegas

Explainable AI research has largely stayed confined to computer simulations in lab settings, according to Motional. The Motional and MIT team instead deployed CW-Net on an autonomous vehicle with an experienced safety operator in the driver’s seat, collecting data on a private test track and on public roads around Las Vegas.

The team used an earlier experimental version of its deep-learning-based planning system, described as showing competitive performance but with notable shortcomings that CW-Net could help surface. Two incidents from the testing illustrate what the system caught.

In one, the autonomous vehicle repeatedly stopped near a traffic cone, and the vehicle operator assumed the cone itself was triggering the behaviour. Researchers removed the cone and the car stopped anyway. CW-Net’s display showed the actual cause: the experimental planning system was hallucinating a stopped vehicle ahead, a pattern traced back to its training data. That explanation let the researchers understand, predict, and resolve the issue.

A second test involved a cyclist. The autonomous vehicle detected and stopped for the cyclist as expected, but CW-Net revealed that the experimental planning system wasn’t actually basing its decision on the cyclist’s presence. The safety driver responded by exercising more caution around cyclists after noticing this. Follow-up analysis confirmed that caution was warranted, because the vehicle’s braking in that case came from a safety backup system rather than the experimental deep-learning-based planner.

Performance held steady against explainability

Adding layers of explainability to an AI system carries a known cost in speed and performance, and Motional acknowledges that risk. However, when researchers benchmarked CW-Net against leading autonomous driving algorithms, the difference in driving capability came in at less than one percent.

The Las Vegas incidents show why that trade-off matters operationally rather than just academically. A safety driver who can see that a stop is caused by a hallucinated vehicle, or that a backup system rather than the primary planner is responsible for a manoeuvre, can respond and report with more precision than one working from behaviour alone.

That visibility feeds directly into how quickly an engineering team can diagnose a system, and how confidently a safety operator can distinguish between an intended behaviour and a fault.

Motional connects the CW-Net work to broader pressure on autonomous vehicle operators as the technology extends into new markets and jurisdictions. Regulators are naturally asking for more transparency about how AI systems reach their decisions, and it expects tools like CW-Net could move from research projects toward a baseline requirement.

Beyond passenger vehicles, autonomous drones and even robotic surgery are cited as other safety-critical domains where operators and developers will need ways to understand a system’s capabilities, limitations, and unexpected behaviours.

Learn more about physical AI during the Physical AI Expo held in Amsterdam, London, and North America.

See also: MIT AI forecasts extreme weather without historical data

Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is part of TechEx and is co-located with other leading technology events including the Cyber Security & Cloud Expo. Click here for more information.

AI News is powered by TechForge Media. Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars here.

The post Motional and MIT AI explains self-driving car decisions appeared first on AI News.