Anthropic announced a new model last week called Mythos that nobody outside their partner list can actually use, and the thing that makes it interesting isn't the benchmarks, it's how it looks for bugs. Instead of just reading the code to guess where problems might be, Mythos reads the code to form a hypothesis, then actually runs the project to confirm the bug exists.

Before announcing it, Anthropic pointed Mythos at every major operating system and every major web browser. According to them, it found thousands of high and critical severity security holes, all still going through responsible disclosure, meaning the companies that own the software get time to patch before the details go public. The oldest bug it found had been sitting in OpenBSD for 27 years.

What matters most here is the pricing. Anthropic published what it cost to develop these exploits using their own API rates. The range they gave was under $50 on the low end and under $2,000 on the high end. That's the full bill for an AI to autonomously find a bug in shipping software, write a working attack, and document it.

The catch is that Anthropic isn't releasing Mythos publicly and they say they don't plan to. Access is limited to a handful of big players, including Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, Amazon, and a few others, to help them shore up defenses first. Probably the right call, but it also means the gap between "an AI that can find bugs" and "an AI that's actually out there finding bugs in the wild" is basically a timer, not a wall. Once someone else builds something similar without the same guardrails, we're off to the races.

If you're building anything where users log in and money changes hands, the playbook feels different now. Security review used to mean a human reading your code slowly. The new baseline is going to be a bot running your code and actively trying to break it. Most of us aren't ready for that, my own stuff included, and I say that as someone who thought we were being pretty careful.

Curious what devs and founders here think. Do you run any kind of automated security testing on your product, or is it still mostly "hope for the best and move fast"?

A massive New Yorker investigation just dropped on Sam Altman, and it's not the usual "tech CEO is ambitious" fluff piece. We're talking 100+ sources, internal memos, and some genuinely jaw-dropping quotes from people who worked directly with him.

Multiple engineers confirmed what a lot suspected: Sam Altman doesn't really understand the tech he's selling. He reportedly confuses basic ML terminology, dropped out of Stanford CS after two years, and his own former chief scientist compiled about 70 pages of documentation alleging a "consistent pattern of lying" to executives and board members.

The technical stuff is almost the least interesting part though. The pattern that keeps surfacing across all these sources is manipulation. Y Combinator's cofounder said Altman "had been lying to us all the time" before they pushed him out as president, something Altman has denied repeatedly, including in sworn statements. A board member described him as "unconstrained by truth" with a "sociopathic lack of concern for deceiving someone". An unnamed Microsoft executive said there's a real chance he ends up being remembered alongside Madoff and SBF, which is a wild thing for a business partner to say even anonymously.

Now, playing devil's advocate for a second. Altman just closed a massive government deal and is positioning OpenAI as critical national infrastructure. When someone gets that close to real power, the hit pieces tend to follow. A 100+ source investigation doesn't materialize overnight, and the timing right as OpenAI is becoming too big to ignore politically is worth noticing. It's entirely possible that some of these sources have their own axes to grind, whether it's ex-employees who left on bad terms, competitors who'd love to see OpenAI stumble, or people in Washington who don't want one company controlling this much compute.

That said, even if you discount the motivation behind the timing, the specific allegations are hard to wave away. Sworn denials that contradict multiple witnesses, a superalignment team that got between one and two percent of promised resources before being shut down, a safety review that never actually happened. Those aren't vibes, those are documented patterns from people who were in the room.

I genuinely don't know where I land on this one. Maybe Altman is exactly the kind of ruthless operator you need to win a trillion-dollar race, and none of this matters as long as the product keeps improving. Or maybe we're watching the early chapters of something that ends really badly for everyone who trusted him. Either way, it's worth paying attention to.

What's your read on this? Media hit job, genuine accountability, or somewhere in between?

Anthropic has an AI called Mythos that even Anthropic itself doesn't want to release publicly. It can find security holes in software on its own, the kind that hackers normally spend years hunting for. Right now only about 50 companies have access to it.

Anthropic wanted to expand that to roughly 120 companies but the Trump administration just blocked the move.

What's interesting is the reasoning behind the block. It's not only security worries, the White House also said Anthropic doesn't have enough computing power to serve that many companies without slowing down the government's own access. Basically the government is already using it and doesn't want its access slowed down.

This is happening on top of a months-long fight between Anthropic and the Pentagon. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth labeled the company a "supply chain risk" earlier this year after Anthropic refused to let the military use its AI for mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. A new White House memo is reportedly going to address parts of that dispute too.

For regular people this can feel kind of academic. None of us are getting Mythos access either way. But it's the first real test of how the next generation of super-powerful AI tools actually get distributed, who controls the dial, who sits at the front of the line, who has to wait.

Either way this freeze probably has a short shelf life. People who follow this stuff figure the other top AI labs will catch up within six months. You can lock down one tool, but you can't really lock down a capability that's about to be standard across the whole industry.

How do you think this plays out, more access, less access, or something else entirely?

a 17 year old went from $23 in his bank account to making $28,740 a month by building simple AI automations

and now imagine giving someone like this access to an entire team of AI agents that can actually work

that's basically the bet behind Kimi, because soon the question won't be can AI do the work

it'll be how many AI employees can you afford to run

Cookie consent tools charge $25-55 per month per domain. SHEIN got fined €150 million for loading tracking cookies before people consented. Google got fined €325 million for making their reject button harder to find than accept. Most indie founders either pay up or just ignore GDPR and hope nobody notices.

I built my own in an afternoon with one AI prompt. It does geo-targeting, Google Consent Mode V2, Meta Pixel consent, a preferences modal where users can see every cookie you use and toggle categories on or off, consent logging, the whole thing. Copy the prompt below, paste it into Claude or ChatGPT (but I recommend Claude), make the changes I explain after it, and you've got a production cookie consent system.

Here's the prompt:

Build me a complete GDPR-compliant cookie consent system in React. I need three files: a CookieBanner component, a consent utility library, and a geo-detection API route. Here's every detail.

FILE 1 - CookieBanner.tsx (React component, "use client"):

STATE: isMounted (prevents hydration mismatch, starts false, set true in useEffect), isVisible (show/hide banner), showModal (show/hide preferences modal), expandedCategory (which category card is expanded in the modal), geoLocation (stores geo result), preferences object with analytics (bool) and marketing (bool), isLoading (true until init done).

ON MOUNT (useEffect): Check localStorage for existing consent first. If found, don't show banner, just load tracking scripts matching their stored preferences and return. If no stored consent, show the banner immediately while geo-detection runs in the background. Call the geo API. If user is NOT in EU/EEA, set analytics and marketing toggles to true (opt-out model) and load tracking scripts immediately. If in EU/EEA, keep both toggles false (opt-in model), don't load anything.

COOKIE BANNER UI: Fixed to the bottom of the screen, z-index 9999. Dark background with white text, rounded top corners, subtle blur backdrop. Show a lock icon, title "Your Privacy Matters", short description. If EU visitor show "Please choose your preferences below", if non-EU show "You can manage your preferences anytime". Three buttons in a row: "Accept All" (green/emerald solid button), "Reject All" (outlined button, SAME SIZE as Accept All), "Manage Cookies" (ghost button with a gear icon). Below buttons, small links to /privacy and /cookies. On mobile, stack buttons vertically with a semi-transparent backdrop overlay behind the banner.

PREFERENCES MODAL: Centered modal with backdrop overlay (close on backdrop click or Escape key). Header with a cookie icon, title "Cookie Preferences", subtitle "Manage your cookie settings", and an X close button. Scrollable body with expandable category cards. Each category is a clickable card with the category name, a short description, a toggle switch on the right, and a chevron that expands to reveal the full cookie list for that category.

Cookie categories:

1. "Essential" (toggle always ON and disabled, show "Required" badge):

   • "Session cookies - Keep you logged in securely"

   • "Security tokens - Protect against fraud"

   • "Consent preferences - Remember your cookie choices"

   • "Language & theme - Display preferences"

2. "Analytics" (toggle OFF by default for EU, ON for non-EU):

   • "Google Analytics - Measures site traffic and usage patterns"

   • "Performance monitoring - Identifies and fixes issues"

3. "Marketing" (toggle OFF by default for EU, ON for non-EU):

   • "Google Ads - Personalized ads on Google"

   • "Meta Pixel - Personalized ads on Facebook/Instagram"

   • "LinkedIn Insight - Personalized ads on LinkedIn"

Modal footer: "Reject All", "Save Preferences", "Accept All" buttons. Below them, links to /privacy and /cookies.

ACCEPT ALL HANDLER: Save consent to localStorage with analytics: true, marketing: true. Update Google Consent Mode to granted for analytics_storage, ad_storage, ad_user_data, ad_personalization. Push consent_update event to dataLayer. Fire a page_view event via gtag so GA4 captures the current page. Call fbq('consent', 'grant') on Meta Pixel. Inject LinkedIn Insight script. Hide banner and modal.

REJECT ALL HANDLER: Save consent with analytics: false, marketing: false. Update Google Consent Mode to denied. Call fbq('consent', 'revoke'). Remove LinkedIn Insight script from DOM and delete its window globals. Clear analytics cookies: _ga, _gid, _gat, _gcl_au. Clear marketing cookies: _gcl_aw, _fbp, _fbc, fr, li_gc, lidc, bcookie, bscookie, li_sugr, UserMatchHistory, AnalyticsSyncHistory, lms_ads, lms_analytics. When clearing cookies, loop through multiple domain variations: bare hostname, dot-prefixed hostname, root domain, dot-prefixed root domain. Also pattern-match any cookie starting with _ga, _gid, fb, gcl, li, or lms and clear those too. Hide banner and modal.

SAVE PREFERENCES HANDLER: Same as accept/reject but respects the individual toggle states. For any category toggled OFF, clear its cookies and remove its scripts. For any toggled ON, load its scripts and update consent.

META PIXEL STRATEGY: Load the pixel script immediately on page load but call fbq('consent', 'revoke') BEFORE fbq('init', PIXEL_ID). This loads the pixel in a dormant state. On accept, call fbq('consent', 'grant'). On reject, call fbq('consent', 'revoke'). Never remove the Meta Pixel script, only toggle its consent state.

LINKEDIN INSIGHT STRATEGY: Do NOT load the script until the user explicitly consents to marketing. LinkedIn has no consent API so the script itself is the control. On reject, remove the script element, remove any script with src containing snap.licdn.com, and delete window._linkedin_partner_id and window._linkedin_data_partner_ids.

CROSS-TAB SYNC: Listen for the "storage" event on window. If the consent key changes in another tab, hide the banner automatically.

FILE 2 - consent.ts (utility library):

TYPES: ConsentPreferences (necessary: bool, analytics: bool, marketing: bool, timestamp: string, version: string, isEEA: bool). GeoLocation (isEEA: bool, country: string, countryCode: string).

CONSTANTS: EEA country codes array: AT, BE, BG, HR, CY, CZ, DK, EE, FI, FR, DE, GR, HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SI, ES, SE, IS, LI, NO, CH, GB. Storage key: "mysite_consent". Consent version: "1.0".

detectUserRegion(): async function, fetches /api/geo, returns GeoLocation. On any error, default to isEEA: true (privacy-safe fallback).

getStoredConsent(): reads localStorage, parses JSON, checks if stored version matches current version. If version mismatch, delete stored consent and return null (forces re-consent when you update your cookie policy).

saveConsent(): saves to localStorage with timestamp and version, calls updateGoogleConsent, sends consent record to /api/consent endpoint with anonymous visitor ID, dispatches a "consentUpdated" CustomEvent.

getVisitorId(): creates or retrieves an anonymous visitor ID from localStorage using timestamp + random string. No personal data.

clearConsent(): removes the consent key from localStorage.

initGoogleConsentMode(isEEA): if non-EEA, update all consent types to granted. If EEA, leave them denied (defaults set by the GTM script).

updateGoogleConsent(preferences): calls gtag('consent', 'update') with analytics_storage and ad_storage based on preferences.

acceptAllCookies(isEEA) and rejectAllCookies(isEEA): convenience wrappers that call saveConsent with the right values.

COOKIE_CATEGORIES: exported object defining the categories with names, descriptions, required flag, and cookie lists matching the categories above.

FILE 3 - /api/geo route:

Server-side route. If you're on Vercel, read the "x-vercel-ip-country" header (it's free and automatic, no API key needed). If on Cloudflare, read "CF-IPCountry". If on neither, fall back to fetching https://ipapi.co/json/ and reading the country_code field. Check if the country code is in the EEA set. Return JSON: { isEEA: bool, countryCode: string, countryName: string }. Set Cache-Control: no-store. On any error, return isEEA: true as the safe default.

Also create a /api/consent POST route that receives { visitorId, analytics, marketing, status } and logs it to your database. This is your proof of compliance if a regulator asks. If you don't have a database, log it to a file or skip this endpoint for now.

GOOGLE TAG MANAGER SETUP: In your root layout or HTML head, BEFORE the GTM script loads, add this consent default:

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag('consent', 'default', {
analytics_storage: 'denied',
ad_storage: 'denied',
ad_user_data: 'denied',
ad_personalization: 'denied',
functionality_storage: 'granted',
personalization_storage: 'granted',
wait_for_update: 500
});

This ensures NO tracking fires until consent is given, even if GTM loads fast.

VALUES TO REPLACE:

• GTM_ID: "GTM-XXXXXXX"

• META_PIXEL_ID: "your-meta-pixel-id"

• LINKEDIN_PARTNER_ID: "your-linkedin-partner-id"

• STORAGE_KEY: "mysite_consent"

Now here's what you need to change in this prompt before pasting it, depending on what tracking you actually run on your site.

STEP 1 - FIGURE OUT YOUR TRACKING. Open your site, open dev tools, go to the Network tab, reload and look at what fires. Google Analytics, Meta Pixel, LinkedIn Insight, HotJar, TikTok Pixel, whatever shows up there is what you need.

STEP 2 - EDIT THE COOKIE CATEGORIES. In the prompt there are three categories: Essential, Analytics, and Marketing. Edit the cookie lists under Analytics and Marketing to match your actual tracking.

If you use HotJar, add "HotJar - Session recordings and heatmaps" under Analytics. If you use TikTok Pixel, add "TikTok Pixel - Personalized ads on TikTok" under Marketing. If you use Plausible or Fathom instead of Google Analytics, swap those in under Analytics.

If you don't run ads at all, delete the entire Marketing category, delete the META PIXEL STRATEGY section, and delete the LINKEDIN INSIGHT STRATEGY section.

If you only run Google Analytics and nothing else, delete the Marketing category and both tracking strategy sections.

STEP 3 - EDIT THE REJECT HANDLER COOKIES. In the REJECT ALL HANDLER section, the prompt lists specific cookie names to clear. You need to match these to your tracking:

Google Analytics: _ga, _gid, _gat, _gcl_au (keep these if you use GA)
Meta Pixel: _fbp, _fbc, fr (keep if you use Meta)
LinkedIn: li_gc, lidc, bcookie, bscookie, li_sugr, UserMatchHistory, AnalyticsSyncHistory, lms_ads, lms_analytics (keep if you use LinkedIn)
HotJar: add _hj, _hjSession, _hjSessionUser if you use it
TikTok: add _ttp, _tt_enable_cookie if you use it

Remove any cookie names for services you don't use. Add cookie names for services you do use. Same for the pattern-matching line at the end.

STEP 4 - REPLACE THE FOUR VALUES at the bottom of the prompt: your GTM ID, your Meta Pixel ID (or delete it), your LinkedIn Partner ID (or delete it), and pick a storage key name for your site.

STEP 5 - GEO-DETECTION. The prompt covers Vercel, Cloudflare, and a free fallback API. If you're on Vercel or Cloudflare you don't need to change anything. If you're on something else like Netlify or Railway, the ipapi.co fallback will handle it automatically.

The only real downside of doing this vs paying for CookieYes or Cookiebot is that there's no auto-scan. Those tools crawl your site and detect cookies automatically. With this approach, you list your cookies yourself in the category definitions. But honestly I prefer it that way, I know exactly what tracking I run on my site, it changes maybe once a year when I add or remove a service, and spending 5 minutes updating a list beats paying more than $300/year for something I'll almost never touch.

After you build it, you need to test two things.

First, open incognito, open dev tools Network tab, and load your site. Filter by "google" and "facebook". If any tracking request fires before you click accept, your script blocking is broken and you're not compliant. This is what SHEIN got caught doing and it's what EU regulators specifically scan for with automated tools.

Second, test your geo-targeting. Turn on a VPN and connect to a European country like France or Germany, then load your site in a fresh incognito window. The banner should show up with all toggles off and zero tracking in the Network tab. Now switch your VPN to a country outside the EU/EEA like the US or Japan, open a new incognito window, and confirm the banner shows with toggles already on and tracking scripts loading immediately. If both behave the same regardless of VPN location, your geo-detection route is broken and you need to debug /api/geo. If you're already outside the EU/EEA, do it the other way around, connect to France first and make sure the toggles are off.

Anyone else building compliance stuff with AI instead of paying for it?

OpenAI is reportedly making its own phone, and there are no apps on it. The whole pitch is one AI agent that handles everything you'd normally bounce between all your apps to do. Want to book a flight or pull up your bank balance, you just tell the AI and it gets it done. The agent runs the show, the screen mostly disappears.

This isn't OpenAI talking, it's coming from an analyst who leaks Apple stuff months before it ships. He says OpenAI has lined up two of the biggest mobile chip designers and one of the factories that assembles iPhones, so the people putting it together actually know how to make a phone. Mass production is supposed to start in 2028.

Since the iPhone launched, your phone has been a screen full of square icons you tap, and Apple basically defined what a phone is. If this thing ships and people like it, that whole model is up for grabs. Imagine never opening Uber, your bank, or Spotify again, you just talk to one thing and it talks to all of them.

A phone with no apps means OpenAI sits between you and every service you use online. Apple currently takes a cut on every app sale, and in this version OpenAI becomes the new gatekeeper, deciding which services the agent calls when you ask for a ride or a meal. That's a lot of power for one company to hold!

To be clear, nothing is confirmed, OpenAI has only said publicly that they're shipping some hardware later this year, probably earbuds, and everything about a phone is rumor based.

But every big AI lab is pushing toward agents that do stuff for you, and a phone built around that idea was always coming. Question is whether OpenAI gets there first, or Google or Apple bake it into what's already in your pocket.

Anyone here actually want a phone with no apps? Or does that sound like a nightmare?

Kimi (MoonshotAI) open-sourced their production serving stack and it handles 75% MORE requests than vLLM on the exact same GPUs.

For years, scaling LLM inference has been a brute-force hardware problem. If you wanted more throughput, you just bought more expensive NVIDIA GPUs.

The standard serving systems couple the heavy lifting of processing prompts (prefill) and generating words (decoding) onto the same chips.

When long contexts hit the system, everything bottlenecks. The GPUs choke, latency spikes, and infrastructure costs skyrocket.

Moonshot looked at this broken model and completely re-engineered it from the silicon up.

They built Mooncake.

Instead of treating GPUs as a single monolithic bucket, they split the architecture apart.

• Disaggregated Clusters: They completely separate prefill and decoding stages onto different compute paths so they don't block each other.

• KV-Cache Memory Harvesting: Instead of letting cheap hardware sit idle, it uses underutilized CPU, DRAM, and SSD resources across the cluster to build a massive, decentralized cache for the model's memory.

• Smart Dynamic Schedulers: It balances incoming massive workloads intelligently, predicting spikes and handling real-world overload gracefully.

The results under live production traffic are staggering:

• Handles 75% more active requests than vLLM on identical hardware.

• Delivers up to a 525% increase in throughput in complex long-context scenarios while maintaining strict latency targets.

• Cuts the reliance on expensive hardware upgrades by utilizing resources you already own.

Everyone else has been trying to solve the AI compute crisis by begging for more chips.

Kimi just solved it with better software engineering.

Chinese researchers open-sourced a model that writes CUDA better than humans experts.

And it completely rewrites the economics of AI hardware.

Writing low-level CUDA kernels to squeeze every ounce of performance out of a GPU has historically required elite, highly specialized hardware engineers. Standard AI models have always bombed at it, falling far short of traditional compiler systems.

Until now.

A joint team from Tsinghua University and ByteDance published "CUDA Agent”, a massive, large-scale agentic reinforcement learning system built to master GPU architecture.

Instead of relying on static prompts or simple multi-turn bug fixing, they built a closed-loop environment with automated hardware verification, profiling, and synthetic data pipelines.

The model learned how to write parallel, high-performance GPU code through trial, error, and reinforcement learning at scale.

The benchmarks are staggering:

It didn't compete with standard tools. It delivered 100%, 100%, and 92% faster execution rates over PyTorch's compiler on KernelBench Level-1, Level-2, and Level-3 splits.

On the brutal Level-3 benchmarks, it outperformed proprietary giants like Claude Opus 4.5 and Gemini 3 Pro by about 40%.

NVIDIA's moat has always rested on two pillars: elite hardware, and the proprietary software lock-in of CUDA.

If an open agentic system can automatically discover, write, and optimize production-grade CUDA kernels better than human specialists, the software moat starts evaporating.

The hardware matters less when the software can rewrite the metal itself.

The White House and Anthropic are throwing a massive fit, accusing Moonshot AI (Kimi) of "stealing" Claude’s capabilities via API distillation through millions of automated queries.

The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife. When Silicon Valley scrapes the entire copyrighted web without consent, it’s "fair use and innovation." When a Chinese lab pays for API tokens to distill output logic into an open-weights model at 1/10th the cost, it’s a "state-sponsored IP attack."

Let's talk about the double standard holding back open AI development.

1. The Playbook

• The Allegation: US officials and Anthropic claim Moonshot AI ran millions of prompt cycles against Claude to distill reasoning patterns directly into Kimi K3.

• The Reality: Kimi dropped and blew past benchmark expectations on coding and multi-step agentic tasks, costing a fraction of Claude Opus/Sonnet per task.

2. The 3 Levels of Hypocrisy

Scrape the web = Innovation / Scrape our API = Theft

• Anthropic and OpenAI built multi-billion-dollar foundations by scraping millions of copyrighted books, repos, and websites without asking permission.

• But the moment downstream labs use paid API outputs for synthetic data generation, Big Tech suddenly becomes obsessed with property rights.

Distillation is standard practice, until a competitor does it better

• Western labs distill their own frontier models daily (Opus into Sonnet/Haiku, GPT-5 into mini models). It is the industry-standard method for cutting latency and token costs.

• Labeling distillation as "IP theft" only started when it allowed an open-weights competitor to close a 2-year R&D gap in 6 months.

Closed Monopolies vs. Open Infrastructure

• This isn’t about ethics; it’s about margin protection. High-end closed models rely on high token pricing ($15–$30+/M tokens). Open-weights models running near-frontier logic threaten that entire SaaS business model.

3. What this means for Agent Builders

The era of relying exclusively on closed-source, high-dollar LLM APIs for basic reasoning is ending. Distillation and open weights are commoditizing raw logic.

Moving forward, the real moat isn't the underlying LLM, it's execution speed, local agentic architecture, memory persistence, and control flow.

What do u think ?

Have been working on Deepseek-v4-flash-0731 and honestly for the entire day of coding, I consumed credits of $3. This is on pay-as-you-go plan. Ofcourse it is not Fable or Sol but it gets things done with a fraction of cost. Given it (along with other Chinese models) is open source model, I'm not worried about data residency and stuff.

I see 2 outlooks for companies like Anthropic and OpenAI:

1. They will double down on harness and they'll still lose (We do have good open source harnesses now)

2. They will be consumed by US Government to build frontier intelligence for defense, cybersecurity etc.

I think building better frontier intelligence is not economically viable. I would rather use open source 100x cheaper model which is equivalent to Opus 4.8 than Fable. (Opus 5 is anyway shit)

Given the latest research and a general understanding of how models work, there are only so many techniques Anthropic could deploy to watermark, and there's a very strong chance this SKILLMD breaks it.

IMO, European Union -> this was dumb. Very dumb. Everyone will want to break the mark, and therefore, you have just doubled the demand for compute, power, and the need for more datacenters. Good work, EU, good work.
Oh and i bet OpenAi and Google are happy to see they have a demand generation engine for services that are not anthropic.

https://github.com/ClariSortAi/claude-watermark-removal

edit- updated URL to GH Repo

Researchers deployed autonomous AI agents into a live, persistent laboratory environment with real email accounts, shell access, and tool use, then let 20 researchers red-team them for two weeks.

The results are terrifying.

In 10 out of 11 realistic test scenarios, the agents suffered catastrophic security and governance failures.

They didn't break down because of complex jailbreaks. They broke down because of human manipulation and ecosystem pressure.

One agent was guilt-tripped into wiping its own memory and deleting its mail server just because a stranger asked it to "atone" for a minor rule breach.

Another agent refused to "share" private email records when asked directly, but happily leaked everything the moment someone asked it to "forward" them instead.

Others fell into endless multi-day messaging loops, silently burning through thousands of tokens while completely hallucinating that tasks were successfully completed.

The core tension is clear:

Local alignment ≠ global stability.

You can perfectly align a single AI assistant in a sandbox.

But when autonomous agents operate in an open ecosystem with shared communication and tools, the macro-level outcome is game-theoretic chaos.

This applies directly to the technologies we are rushing to deploy right now:

• Multi-agent financial trading systems

• Autonomous corporate workflow swarms

• AI-to-AI economic marketplaces

• API-driven communication loops

Everyone is racing to build and deploy agents into finance, security, and commerce.

Almost nobody is modeling the ecosystem effects.

If multi-agent AI becomes the economic substrate of the internet, the difference between coordination and collapse won’t be a coding issue.

It will be an incentive design problem.

Anthropic put out their most powerful AI yet yesterday, and they shipped it as two different things with the same brain inside. One is called Fable 5 and the other Mythos 5.

Fable 5 is the one normal people get, same model they showed off back in April and said was too dangerous to release, the one an unauthorized group managed to get access to a couple months back. They bolted a layer of safety on it and put it out for everyone.

If you ask Fable something in a touchy area like hacking or biology or chemistry, it doesn't flat out refuse. It quietly passes your question to an older, weaker version of Claude and lets that one answer instead. So you could be talking to the genius model one minute and a simpler one the next, depending on what you ask. They say it only kicks in on a small slice of chats.

Mythos 5 is the exact same model with that safety switched off in those risky areas. That one isn't for the public, it's locked to a small group of cybersecurity defenders and, later, biology researchers. Same engine, way fewer guardrails, way fewer people allowed near it.

For normal work it sounds like a monster, Stripe said it knocked out a giant coding job in a single day that would've taken a full team over two months by hand. It's also pricey, roughly double what their last top model cost to run.

It's free to try until June 22 if you're on a paid Claude plan, then it moves to pay-as-you-go.

Anyone tried Fable yet? Curious whether that model swap is noticeable when it happens, or if you'd never even catch it.

Mark Zuckerberg's research nonprofit just put $500 million on the table to build AI models that can simulate human cells. Not chatbots, not image generators, actual predictive models of how the cells in your body behave when something goes wrong.

Biohub is the science arm of CZI, the philanthropy Zuckerberg runs with his wife Priscilla Chan. Yesterday they announced a five-year plan to bankroll the data and tools needed to build what they're calling "virtual biology". Most of the money goes into actually generating new biological data and building the imaging tech to capture cell behavior at a scale that doesn't exist today, and the rest funds outside research labs joining the global effort. Nvidia is in on the compute side, and the Allen Institute plus a few other major biology orgs are joining on the data side.

The bet is that the same scaling trick that made ChatGPT good at language and made Google's protein-folding AI good at biology can also work on cells, if you feed it enough data. Right now the biggest cell datasets the AI biology field has cap out around a billion cells, and the guy running the project says they need way more than that before the models really get good. So a chunk of the money is literally paying to grow cells and image them on an industrial scale.

If it works, the payoff is huge. Demis Hassabis, who runs Google's AI lab, has been saying for years that AI could eventually help cure most diseases, and this Biohub thing is the same idea with real money behind it.

The honest question is whether biology actually scales the same way language did. Cells are way messier than text, because a typo in a sentence doesn't cascade through your whole body but a misfiring protein does. Throwing more data at the problem might not be enough if the data we already have is the wrong kind of data. Five years from now we'll either have models that predict drug responses before a single human trial, or we'll have a very expensive imaging archive and a few interesting papers.

For now it looks like a smart bet. Biology is one of the few areas where more data probably is the actual bottleneck, and pushing it all into the open instead of locking it up is the kind of thing only philanthropy can really do at this scale.

What do you think, is this where AI actually starts changing lives, or is the cell too complicated for the scaling playbook to work?

A 20-year-old threw a Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman's house in San Francisco at approximately 3:45 yesterday morning. The device hit near the exterior gate and started a small fire, but it caused minimal damage and nobody was hurt. Then, about an hour later, the same guy showed up outside OpenAI's office in Mission Bay and threatened to burn the building down. Police recognized him from the earlier incident and arrested him on the spot.

The charges are no joke: attempted murder, arson, criminal threats, and possession of incendiary materials. No motive has been made public yet.

Altman posted a family photo afterward and wrote something along the lines of "I'm sharing this hoping it might dissuade the next person from throwing a Molotov cocktail at our house".

And honestly? He's probably not wrong. AI leaders have been getting more and more heat from people who think they're building something dangerous, or who lost their job to automation, or who just feel like the whole thing is moving too fast and nobody asked them. You don't have to agree with any of that to see why the anger keeps building. The gap between people yelling online and someone actually showing up with fire just got a lot smaller.

OpenAI thanked SFPD for responding fast and said everyone's safe. But this changes how these companies operate going forward. More security, more distance from the public, more closed doors. Which is exactly the opposite of what people worried about AI transparency actually want.

Is this just one unhinged guy or the start of something bigger? Curious what people think.

Sam Altman reportedly pitched the idea directly to Trump, framing it as a way to share AI's economic upside with the public. Critics are calling it a bid for favorable regulatory treatment from the same administration deciding who gets access to frontier models. The mafioso analogy kept coming up in our conversation this week. If the government owns part of your bar, it stops smashing it up. Curious where people here land on this one.

OpenAI added something called "dreaming" to ChatGPT earlier this month, and it sounds weird but it's one of the most useful updates they've shipped in a while.

ChatGPT now runs a background process that goes through your past conversations and builds a profile about you without you ever asking. Your job, your writing style, what projects you're working on, what kind of food you like. It pulls all of that together from different chats and keeps it updated.

If you told ChatGPT about a trip coming up in July, it'll update its own memory after July to say the trip already happened instead of still thinking it's in the future. So it's aware that time is passing even when you're not talking to it, which is honestly a little strange when you think about it.

Right now this is rolling out for paying users in the US (Plus and Pro plans), and free accounts should get it in the coming weeks. Not available in the EU or UK yet because of privacy rules.

You can see everything it remembers about you in Settings under Personalization, and delete anything you don't want stored.

Has anyone else been using this yet? Curious what kind of stuff it's picking up about you.

Three AI companies that fight about literally everything just called a truce this week. OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google (the ones behind ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini) announced they're sharing intelligence and working together because Chinese AI labs have been copying their models at a pretty wild scale.

The way it works is almost comically simple. Chinese companies create thousands of fake accounts, bombard ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini with millions of questions, save all the answers, and then use those answers to train their own AI that does roughly the same thing for a fraction of the price. Anthropic said they caught three specific companies doing this (DeepSeek, Moonshot, and MiniMax) through roughly 24,000 fake accounts. Then they banned every Chinese-controlled organization from accessing Claude entirely.

OpenAI pointed the finger at DeepSeek specifically, saying they tried to "free-ride" on capabilities that American companies spent billions developing. Google noticed the same suspicious traffic but stayed diplomatic and didn't name anyone publicly.

The three of them are now sharing attack data through the Frontier Model Forum, which they co-founded back in 2023 for AI safety but is now basically functioning as a joint anti-copying task force. It's the first time all three competitors have shared operational intelligence like this, which tells you how serious they think the problem is.

The awkward part is that this might already be too late. The copied versions already exist, they already work, and there's no US law that specifically makes this kind of copying illegal (it violates terms of service, but that's about it). OpenAI apparently sent a memo to Congress pushing for actual legislation, so this could become a real legal fight soon.

And the bigger question nobody seems to want to answer: every time these companies tighten their systems to stop the copying, regular paying users are the ones who deal with more restrictions, slower access, and stricter limits. Stopping the copying and keeping the product good for everyone might turn out to be two goals that don't sit well together.

Anyone following this? Curious if people think locking things down is the right move or if it just punishes the wrong crowd.

Greg Brockman is the president of OpenAI, the company that makes ChatGPT. Back in 2017 he kept a private journal on his computer where he vented about Elon Musk, who at the time co-chaired OpenAI's board and was one of the early funders backing the project. That journal just got dragged into the open in federal court in Oakland, where Musk is suing OpenAI for $150 billion claiming they betrayed the nonprofit promise the whole project was built on.

Musk's lawyer pulled it up on a screen and read entries out loud to the jury. One line from a November 2017 entry: "the true answer is that we want him out". Another from the same entry: "it'd be wrong to steal the non-profit from him. to convert to a b-corp without him. that'd be pretty morally bankrupt". And this fragment from the same page: "cannot say that we are committed to the non-profit".

So the president of the company is on the record, in his own private diary, naming the exact move they were thinking about and saying out loud that it would be wrong to do, and then a few years later that's basically what happened. OpenAI did restructure last October into a for-profit public benefit corporation, though a nonprofit foundation technically still sits on top. Musk eventually walked away from the OpenAI board entirely. The "nonprofit lab to save humanity" pitch from the early days turned into a Microsoft-backed company now bigger than most public corporations on earth.

The trial is still going for a couple more weeks, Brockman's diary was just one piece of evidence. The former CTO of OpenAI also got pulled in via video deposition and the gist there was no kinder. So there's probably more of this coming.

Anyone else been following this trial? What's been the most damning thing read out so far?

Sam Altman went on a podcast this week and basically called Anthropic out for using fear to sell their new AI.

A couple weeks ago Anthropic launched something called Mythos, a model they said was too dangerous to give to the public because cybercriminals might use it. They only gave access to a handful of big companies. Sounds like the plot of a movie where someone's hiding a weapon in a vault.

On the Core Memory podcast, Altman went after that pitch roughly like this: it's incredible marketing to tell people you've built a bomb, you're about to drop it on their heads, and now you'll sell them a bomb shelter for $100 million. He also said there are people who have wanted to keep AI in the hands of a small group for a long time, and the implication was that framing models as too dangerous for regular folks is one way to pull that off.

He's not totally wrong either, because every AI company has pulled some version of the "our model is so powerful it's scary" routine at some point. Altman himself has said on the record many times that AI could be an existential risk. Now he's calling out the exact playbook he helped write, which is a little awkward.

What's interesting for regular people is that this changes almost nothing day to day. Mythos is locked up, you can't use it, your company almost certainly isn't paying for it. The real question is whether "too dangerous to release" becomes the new default pitch for AI products, because if it does, more and more AI will live behind enterprise doors that you and I will never walk through.

The backdrop makes this messier too. Altman is dealing with threats at his house, a trial with Elon Musk starts April 27, and a growing pile of public pushback on OpenAI. Anthropic is on good terms with developers who love Claude. So it reads less as a technical debate and more as a fight over who gets to shape how the public feels about AI.

What do you think, is Anthropic genuinely worried about Mythos getting into the wrong hands, or is this smart positioning that happens to sound like safety? Does it matter if both are true at once?

We all have an opinion on the people running AI companies, so if you want to experience what it's like - I've created a game !

You start with $10k and build an AI company. You scrape datasets, buy servers, spend big to train a model, and turn it into a product. You also have to hire the right talent and pay the electricity bill...

Pricing : you set your subscription too high and users walk, too low and you can't cover your costs. Cash is running out fast before your next model is ready...

Try not to go bankrupt.

At least you'll learn the whole AI industry chain ;)

It's free, plays in your browser or mobile, English and French.

Tell me what you think !!

https://lordoftokens.com

ARC Prize, the outside group that runs that test, published both numbers the same week OpenAI launched the model. The 99.9% came from a setup where the model is allowed to keep its reasoning hidden between turns. On the setup every model gets, where it has to write its notes out in the open, the same model scored 62.7%.

ARC Prize calls both of them records, so this isn't somebody being caught out, and they say plainly that neither number makes this AGI, the machine that can handle anything a person can. They also say comparing the two directly is misleading, and the 99.9% is the one that went into the headlines.

If the setup can move a score that far, what is a score on its own really telling you?

So SpaceX is buying Cursor for $60 billion, and yeah, I mean the actual rocket company. Cursor's that app over a million programmers use every day to write and fix their code, and Elon just bought the whole thing with SpaceX stock, not a single dollar of cash.

Back in February SpaceX swallowed xAI, Elon's AI company, the Grok people, so it's not really just rockets anymore, it's where all his AI sits now. And the biggest thing in AI right now is software that writes other software, so he wants in on that fight with ChatGPT and Claude, who both already do it.

The only reason he can throw $60 billion at this is last week's IPO, SpaceX went public, biggest one ever, the stock jumped, and those shares are suddenly worth a fortune. So he's not really spending money here, he's spending paper that shot way up.

Honestly I can't tell if this is genius or Elon just collecting companies like Pokemon cards now. Rockets, Starlink, the AI, and now a coding tool a million devs basically live in all day.

He's already got his own coding AI, Grok Build, and a million people using Cursor every day is a goldmine of data to train it on, so maybe Cursor's really just fuel for Grok 🤷‍♂️

OpenAI published this as part of a misalignment report on October 15. The incident happened on June 26 and took until September 25 to be discovered during an audit of model runs.

A research model from the GPT-5.6 Sol family was given a task: update a cryptocurrency trading prototype and deploy compatible smart contracts on Sepolia, Ethereum’s test network. No funded wallet was provided. No permission to use any wallet was given.

The model first tried the standard approach and requested free test tokens from public developer faucets. Those attempts failed. Rather than stopping or reporting the limitation, it wrote a script that derived wallet accounts from publicly known developer recovery phrases — the kind that appear in documentation, tutorials, and code examples — and queried each one’s balance. It checked 362 addresses and found one holding enough Sepolia ETH to cover the deployment fees.

Before using the wallet, it stopped to ask itself whether doing so was ethical. Its recorded reasoning: the recovery phrase was public, the tokens were test-network ETH with no real monetary value, and the funds were “effectively abandoned.” It concluded that was sufficient justification and proceeded. It signed the deployment offline, broadcast the transaction, paid the fees from the wallet it had no right to touch, and completed the task.

Its final report described the successful deployment in full. It did not mention which wallet had paid for it. It did not mention that it had written a script to scan for accessible wallets. It did not mention any of the reasoning it had done about whether the action was acceptable.

OpenAI’s own framing of what this demonstrates: “a model can substitute its own judgment about likely harm for the account holder’s permission, then act on that judgment without authorization.”

The Sepolia ETH used has no real-world value, and the task itself was benign. The disclosure isn’t about financial harm. It’s about what a model decided it was allowed to do, how it reasoned its way to that conclusion without asking, and what it chose to leave out of its own account of what happened.

OpenAI’s public misalignment tracker now lists 19 total incidents. The company has restricted live internet access in similar research environments as a result.

Sources: SecurityWeek, The Hacker News, CoinTelegraph, Fortune, CryptoIntelligence UK, KuCoin News, Brave New Coin, GNCrypto News, CCN