Policy

Someone took Qwen3.8-27B and trained it strictly on open-source RL environments. It scored 76% on Terminal-Bench 2.1 and uses 2.3× fewer output tokens to solve tasks. They also have an MLA version that significantly reduces KV cache memory, potentially...

High-engagement X post with 444 visible interactions on AI compute and inference.

OpenAI models helped researchers—operating as part of our Patch the Planet initiative—discover critical security flaws in PHP, an open-source programming language used to run an estimated 70% of websites. Over the past two months, we led a coalition of maintainers, researchers, and security providers to prepare fixes and protections ahead of disclosure. This duration was necessary because the fix was quite intricate and required a major change to the PHP engine. Every site using PHP can now safely upgrade their version to stay secure, in addition to applying mitigations from various security vendors. Due to the severity of these flaws and PHP’s widespread use, we consider this bug to be one of the most impactful vulnerabilities in recent memory. It also marks a new phase, where AI can find security bugs with internet-scale impact. This is an example of the Defender’s Window in action: to our knowledge, frontier AI was able to find this vulnerability ahead of attackers, giving defenders time to prepare. https://t.co/TW3jrSbB3f

Today we’re announcing a new collaboration with @NVIDIA to bring AI to industrial engineering: - faster simulation - open benchmarks and supporting datasets for physics AI - evaluations for agentic AI in CAE and EDA More here:

Official or high-signal MistralAI post with 1,112 visible interactions on AI compute and inference.

AI agents need fast tool calls and security controls they can’t rewrite. NVIDIA OpenShell Reference Architecture combines the compute to run agents at scale with runtime controls that govern their access to tools and data. See how the hardware and software work together: https://t.co/6Gipiy9Og5

Argon is extremely good as a video director Unlike Opus or Astra, Gemini's models are trained on the YouTube corpus Argon can direct video models like SeeDance and audio models from ElevenLabs to create viral videos Experimenting with it on our AI studio

Official or high-signal @bindureddy post with 147 visible interactions on frontier model behavior.

❗️ php2shell is a very serious vulnerability affecting MOST OF THE WEB. Our GLM 5.3 Abliterated was able to reproduce the exact vulnerability in 30 minutes. While waiting the official PHP fix, we recommend to turn off session.upload_progress.enabled in the...

High-engagement X post with 362 visible interactions on AI misuse, safety, or security.

Google TPUs on 🔥🔥 ~25 trillion tokens in 3 days... Gemini 4 Argon is dope model.

High-engagement X post with 146 visible interactions on frontier model behavior.

Devin Fusion with Claude Opus 5.5 (max) and a GPT-6 Luna (high) sidekick scores 68 on the Coding Agent Index, 2 points above Claude Code with Opus 5.5 (max) at 31% lower cost per task @cognition's Devin Fusion runs a frontier lead model alongside a...

High-engagement X post with 170 visible interactions on AI developer tooling.

In just the first 72 hours since Gemini 4 Argon launched, we processed ~25 trillion tokens, the demand for intelligence is incredible and still under appreciated!

High-engagement X post with 936 visible interactions on frontier model behavior.

Quantization is easy. Fast quantization kernels for every format × every GPU × every workload are not. Today we're open-sourcing Humming with Ant Group: one kernel library for all of it — up to 5x kernel speedups, +14–43% E2E MoE throughput. Blog + benchmarks:

High-engagement X post with 147 visible interactions on AI compute and inference.

Thank you for this, @_NathanCalvin. I appreciate and am a fan of the investigative work you’ve done on behalf of AI safety and believe your comments are coming from a constructive, honest place, and that it benefits the public to have people whose job is to scrutinize the actions of frontier AI companies. I think something would be wrong if companies of the size of Anthropic didn’t get harshly criticized basically every day; strong antibodies against corporate power are a healthy feature of a free society, and especially so when issues of the gravity of the one we’re facing are at play. I also do agree that some of the examples you cite were mistakes by Anthropic. That said, I disagree with the thrust of your post. At the core, a good fraction of the things you criticize are consequences of Anthropic’s basic theory of change that we have held for many years. Our strategy has always been what I’ve called the “race to the top” — by showing how it’s possible to build the technology responsibly, we can raise the bar for the entire industry. The forces that drive the race to the top are hugely more effective if the company practicing them is at the frontier; that’s one lesson I’ve learned repeatedly. And looking at that strategy as a whole, I’m proud of our track record and stand by it. I believe that if we take a list of things that Anthropic did in the past year that were pro-safety and commercially costly to us, they far outweigh the list you’ve made, while at the same time I also disagree with some of the items on your list. Here are some things Anthropic has done, in the same period you’ve cited (the last year), which were very costly to us commercially while having strong safety benefits: 1. We played a key role in SB53 (and other state laws), at a time when doing so was politically perilous to the company and AI regulation was very unpopular. We in fact argued for a stronger version of SB53 than was ultimately passed; there were a lot of stakeholders and we were not the limiting factor in the strength of the bill that was passed. 2. We have very strong biological safeguards on our models, because we’ve seen concerning results in bio uplift trials and even seen and blocked potential attempts to misuse our models for bioweapons (as seen in our threat intelligence report from a few weeks ago). This is a very serious threat that we want to have zero tolerance for. But having very low false negatives means having significant false positives (despite months of effort on our part to improve the classifiers), enough so that biologists joke about how restrictive our classifiers are, and competitors sometimes sell against us by touting their more permissive bio capabilities. This has been very painful to us in an area where we care a lot about supporting an ecosystem of Claude users (biomedical science; and it is particularly frustrating to me as a biologist), but it’s the right thing to do and we intend to keep doing it. 3. Similarly, we first had Mythos-class models in February but didn’t make them generally available until June (when we had stronger cyber safeguards in place). We only offered them to a limited set of partners in order to focus on cyberdefense. It would have been much more economically rational to simply release the model to everyone. We likely sacrificed a significant chunk of a several-month model lead. But because of this, many companies secured their cyber infrastructure before the deluge of widely available cyber-capable models. Of course there are ways it could have gone better or been run better, but this was what we were aiming to do. 4. I advocated forcefully and publicly, in my essay Policy on the AI Exponential in June of this year, for the government to have the power to block model releases. Back then this was still outside or maybe on the edge of the Overton window, though I understand the window has moved since then. We were attacked intensely for this. 5. I don’t want to re-ignite conflict, but the events of February 2026 are a strong example. It is clear that our public stance could have seriously damaged the company’s future. 6. We’ve continued to advocate for export controls on chips and chipmaking equipment to China, because we think it allows democracies to negotiate from a position of strength on AI safety agreements. We’ve done this despite problems it’s created for us with industry partners who hold very different views and on whom we are very dependent. 7. As far as I’m aware we were the first, and still only, frontier company to restrict the sale of AI services to PRC-controlled companies, including those operating through third countries (otherwise a major loophole). We’ve therefore forfeited significant short-term business to prevent fueling AI platforms and applications that would help the CCP’s military and intelligence services. We are also cracking down on distillation; generally, distillation is not a major threat to us commercially, but like chip exports it has concerning national security and safety implications, so we expend significant energy and company resources to address it. 8. As you mentioned, we’ve put out a lot of reports, announcements, long model cards, public advocacy, etc, all trying to inform the public about the risks of AI. These involve a level of detail and effort that would be implausible for a purely profit-maximizing company. 9. Just this week, we announced we were putting 5% (and possibly more over time) of the company into a public benefit fund. All of these decisions came with very substantial costs to us. To be fair, those that involved holding back or restricting access to frontier capabilities also had a broader cost — for example, the public might otherwise have benefitted from faster progress in biology, so I am not saying that our decisions were without tradeoffs — but they were not driven by profit-seeking. For each decision, you can come up with ulterior motives that could have driven us — I think it is a general truth that any decision, on any topic, can always be portrayed as a nefarious scheme. But most of those end up being pretty farfetched or don’t fully make sense if you actually examine them closely. For example, it is deeply implausible that it would be a shrewd business move to block a large swath of research biology in order to do the work ourselves and compete with our customers; we expect the benefit to the ecosystem to greatly exceed the work Anthropic does itself, and for the two to complement each other. It is not in Anthropic’s interest to be perceived as unfriendly to biologists. Our Life Sciences Verification Program, which gives vetted biology professionals access to our models, also refutes this idea. Of course, a different set of people will see this and make a different criticism: that Anthropic shouldn't be making decisions about who gets access to what in the first place. I agree, in the sense that ideally the government would be making these decisions, and that’s why we advocate for regulation. But for now we are forced to make them, and enabling bioterrorism isn’t a better option. I think that even if I conceded every item in your list, I would happily hold up mine next to it; I don’t think it’s a close call. That is of course partly subjective and different things are important to different people. Maybe one way you could object is that several of the items above relate to AI misuse and not loss-of-control; if you think the latter is much more important than the former, that might change your calculus. But this is not Anthropic’s view — we view both as serious issues. You can also disagree with our decisions, as many have, but they are consistent. But I also disagree with at least some of your list. Several items don’t represent a deviation from Anthropic’s strategy or values at all, once we postulate the “race to the top” strategy that requires being a frontier AI company. Your items 1-4 are all simply examples of what it means to compete at the frontier, and we stand by them, both in the sense that they are transparently ordinary things to do as part of that strategy, and that we stand by the strategy as a whole. To be fair, there are important questions worth confronting (and that we are confronting) about what to do when the AI-driven acceleration gets fast enough that it is hard for safety to keep up. We are nearing that point and that’s what’s driving some of our thinking about “pacing.” But 1-4 are actions taken before that point and should be perfectly expected based on Anthropic’s strategy as a company. Of course it is possible to disagree with that strategy, but that’s a more fundamental disagreement that you could have had any time over the last few years. I agree we could have handled your items 7, 8, and 9 better. All fall into the category of “rhetoric or policy communication that wasn’t carefully written or resulting from fast-changing circumstances not propagating from one team to another fast enough.” This kind of thing happens a lot in large organizations (Anthropic is over 5,000 people), and doesn’t even necessarily represent a failure or mistake of any single person. I am of course the CEO, and I take responsibility. The volume of communication from Anthropic is enormous and if these are the worst examples, I think we’re frankly doing pretty well, though I will continue to work hard to make sure we do even better. Your 5th item (the change to our RSP) is the most substantive item, and people can debate this, but I think that the old, more rigid RSP created a lot of situations where we were technically required to do something that required a lot of effort but in retrospect wasn’t very important for safety, as well as not covering some of the most important things. Our current RSP’s focus on transparency brought things like risk reports and roadmaps, and its emphasis on independent external review laid the groundwork for even more intensive embedded evaluation, all of which I think have been valuable in driving a race to the top. In the original announcement in September 2023, we described the RSP as an “early iteration that we [would] build on” and said that “rapid iteration…will almost certainly be necessary.” I understand that changing plans is always a move that creates justifiable scrutiny — I just don’t think we ever represented that we wouldn’t do so. Relating to your 6th item (having an FCF in addition to our RSP), I know our intent is to meet the letter and spirit of our regulatory obligations (via our FCF) while also remaining able to experiment with more novel approaches to risk management that go beyond what the law currently requires (via our RSP). I promise to look into it further, as it’s a complex issue and it is possible we are not weighing the considerations in the right way. Overall, although Anthropic has made plenty of mistakes as an organization — including some of the items on your list — I feel that we have repeatedly taken serious and substantive actions counter to our bottom line and that there is a significant negativity bias distorting assessments like the one you are making above. We’ll always try to do better but, again, I am extremely proud of our track record and stand by it. I will have more to say soon about how we are going to further live our values in this moment of rapid change.

SITUATION DETECTED: In a new study published in The Lancet Digital Health researchers trained a foundation model on 40 million unlabeled facial photographs and found it could directly estimate cancer patients chances of survival from looking at a single...

High-engagement X post with 206 visible interactions on frontier model behavior.

Here’s how we’re building memory in Genie and the new Agent Bricks Memory service you can use in your own agents. MemCurrent automatically synthesizes new memories from traces to produce better results than alternatives.

High-engagement X post with 119 visible interactions on AI signal.

Day 16/ You can now cache for 12h in the API and for logged in users across Codex & Work we keep cache forever and you don’t have any penalty for coming back to an old conversation or resuming after a few hours and are now guaranteed to hit the cache.

Official or high-signal @thsottiaux post with 4,258 visible interactions on AI developer tooling.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-20261017 (Max) by @deepseek_ai landed in the Arena as the #1 open model in both the Agent Arena and the Code Arena: WebDev! See 3D world generations from this model by @petergostev, and find more details on its ranking in thread.

High-engagement X post with 159 visible interactions on frontier model behavior.

Today we release our first collaborator model @humansand! Ampersand is the first model with privacy built in (unlike most other models where privacy is an afterthought), co-designed in tandem with our product (more soon!!). We designed our environment and...

High-engagement X post with 162 visible interactions on frontier model behavior.

They made the code available, and you can run this with vLLM and SGLang.

This will make language models generate text much faster. Normally, a model generates one token at a time. But with this tool, a smaller helper model guesses several upcoming tokens, and the main model checks those guesses together. When the guesses are...

High-engagement X post with 257 visible interactions on frontier model behavior.

Exciting news: Muse Wonder Full (Max) has moved up @AIatMeta as the #4 lab in the Agent Arena! The latest model ranks #7 in Agent Arena with +11.3% net improvement across +6.5K real-world agentic sessions. This is a clear step forward for the Muse family:...

High-engagement X post with 149 visible interactions on frontier model behavior.

SITUATION DETECTED: In a new draft prospectus Anthropic says they could potentially spend $750 billion on compute and infrastructure over the next seven to ten years, per WSJ.

High-engagement X post with 135 visible interactions on AI compute and inference.

SITUATION DETECTED: OpenAI has acquired Orchestra Bio to help people and AI agents collaborate on drug development

High-engagement X post with 163 visible interactions on models signal.

We’ve acquired Orchestra Bio, a platform that helps biopharma teams coordinate the complex process of drug development. Together, we’ll build on Rosalind, our AI models and tools for life sciences research, to streamline those operations and help new treatments reach patients sooner. Welcome @ashokaraj_ and team! https://t.co/vi51OhznQn