Wow the new roadster looks quite amazing, good job @elonmusk

So basically, today PHP got two critical bugs that let anyone run code on your server without even logging in, which is bad, and then the details leaked before the patch was even out, which is worse, and it works on WordPress and MediaWiki and Magento and Joomla and Laravel, and Censys says like 1.5 million servers are running a version with no fix, so the NSA was like "take your system offline," and the FBI was like "take your system offline," and CISA and the UK and CERT-EU were all like "take your system offline," and then the Prime Minister of Japan, the actual Prime Minister, posted at 5:55 in the morning telling 48.8 million people to take their system offline, so everyone took their system offline, like the Dutch cybersecurity agency took its own website offline, and the Dutch parliament went offline, and the Port of Rotterdam went offline, and Finland and France and Denmark started pulling government sites, and Wikipedia went down, and Archive.org went down, and Asana and GOG and Something Awful went down, and the University of Vienna's webmail went down for some reason, and that's just PHP. Because GitLab also dropped a CVSS 10.0, which is the highest score they give out, for a bug that's been there since 2014, so that's every self-hosted GitLab for twelve years, and then LiteLLM 1.107.0 got hijacked and shipped a credential stealer and a remote access trojan in every single wheel and the Docker images, including latest, and you didn't even have to import it, just installing it was enough, and it's the second time this year, and then Railway paused every deployment on the entire platform because someone got into the environment variables, so now everyone has to rotate every secret they've ever stored there, and TiDB Cloud said someone was walking around inside with stolen credentials for basically a month and an extortion group says they took 10.6 terabytes, and Zeabur got breached for the second time in two months and is just shutting down, like the whole company, and Node.js patched remote code execution and a TLS bypass, and CISA says Plex is being actively exploited, and someone took over 300 Tor exit relays to steal SSH passwords, and SafePay ransomware has hit over 600 critical infrastructure orgs, and India's biggest bank filed a data loss incident, and Japan has been in an official state of emergency in cyberspace since October 9, which honestly explains the 5:55 AM post. Oh, and eMudhra, a certificate authority that's issued over 60 million certificates, whose entire job is proving websites are who they say they are, was supposed to be using private keys that are random numbers over a hundred digits long, and one of them was 4. Just 4. And the others were like 66 and 237. Anyway, it's Wednesday.

We’re opening a research preview of Claude Duet, a new app where Claude works as a proactive agent. It comes to you with what needs your attention, completes tasks you ask of it, keeps working when you step away, and checks with you before it acts on your behalf.

1/ Today we're introducing Breken, and with it the final job in software: production engineering. Your tests check what your team thought of. Production checks everything else. Today, your users run that second test for you. Breken runs it instead. Your real software, in worlds that behave like production, down to the chaos and the users, finding and fixing what breaks before a single user does. Here it is: breken.ai

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. openai.com/index/coordinated…

Unitree Introducing: H2-X Kung Fu Legend Guardian🤖 Powerful performance to serve and guard you, with a maximum endurance of approximately 8 hours. Please use the robot safely and in a friendly manner.

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.

JUST IN: Anthropic recorded a staggering $80,000,000,000.00 net loss in the first half of 2026.

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! openai.com/index/openai-to-a…

🚀 Introducing DeepInfer, our in-house inference framework, now fully open source! Powering DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash at scale with high throughput and low latency. We’re sharing our production stack to help the community lower compute costs, reduce energy use, and make AI more affordable. 🔗 github.com/deepseek-ai/DeepI… 1/4

We found DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 beats GPT 6 Sol on our multi-step offensive cybersecurity task. Sol was tested via the Daybreak trusted access program. We have been building a cybersecurity benchmark based on simulated corporate networks. This is a valuable indicator for the cyber-risk a model poses if in the hands of a bad actor. We plan to make the full evaluation public in the coming weeks but wanted to share our first immediate finding here.

If capitalism rewarded skill, neurosurgeons, engineers, and scientists would top the rich lists. If it rewarded talent, artists, writers, and creators would. If it rewarded hard work, cleaners, laborers, and service workers would. None of them do.

How good are AI Agents at using your tool? Find out with Scope: tryscope.com/demos We partnered with @AgentMail to test 25 model and harness combinations across 7 email tasks. AgentMail co-founder @adisingh shares why they needed an eval in the first place and why they chose Scope to run it 👇

❗️ A Mac user says Claude Code was building them a temperature monitor app when it found a cryptominer using 12 cores. The readings looked too high, so it checked the CPU and found XMRig at ~1175%, with the chip at 112°C.

MiniMax M3.1 Flash: Space Performance + Bunny Speed 🚀🐰 Yes, Space Bunny - which has topped global leaderboards with 200T+ tokens - was an earlier version of M3.1 Flash. 💰Redefining the performance economics of agentic AI. M3.1 Flash achieves frontier-level intelligence across key tasks such as Cowork (Automation-Bench: 62%; ALE: 30%), Coding (DeepSWE: 74%) and Visual Reasoning (BabyVision: 91%), at 1/3 the cost of M3 and 3x the speed. API pricing (flat rate): $0.15 / $0.60 per 1M input/output tokens, with cache reads at $0.015 / 1M tokens. Model weights will arrive on Oct 23. API: platform.minimax.io M Plan: minimax.io/m-plan MiniMax Code for desktop: agent.minimax.io/download

Next year, I will give one of my SpaceX shares to every kid in America. This will be the first of many.

Every atom in your body has already been inside a dying star. Not once. Three or four times. Crushed under pressures that flatten planets. Superheated to millions of degrees. Blown apart in explosions so violent they forged entirely new elements out of the wreckage. Then gravity gathered the scattered pieces. New stars formed. The cycle repeated. For 13.8 billion years, your atoms have been fuel for the most violent process in the universe. They have burned through stellar cores, drifted through the vacuum between galaxies, and collapsed back into furnaces hotter than anything language was built to describe. They did all of this with no awareness that they were doing it. No memory. No experience. No sense of what they were or where they had been. Just matter moving through physics, blind and indifferent, for longer than the human mind can comprehend. Then, on one unremarkable planet orbiting one unremarkable star, those atoms did something they had never done in 13.8 billion years of existence. They woke up. Not all of them. Not even most of them. A vanishingly small fraction of all the matter in the universe arranged itself into a configuration capable of looking back at the stars that made it and understanding what it was seeing. That configuration is you. You are not a person who happens to be made of ancient material. You are ancient material that briefly learned how to think. The atoms were here long before you. They will be here long after. But right now, in this impossibly thin sliver between stellar cycles, they are aware. And the sliver is almost exactly half over. Your atoms have been through the furnace three or four times. They will go through three or four more. The stars that will consume them next are already burning. The process does not wait and it does not care whether anything inside it is paying attention. That is what makes this sliver so extraordinary. The universe does not need witnesses. Stars burn without an audience. Galaxies collide without anyone recording it. Physics does not require comprehension to operate. The entire system ran for billions of years in total silence, and it will run for billions more after the last conscious thing goes dark. But right now, matter is examining itself. Right now, the universe contains something that can ask what it is, where it came from, and what happens next. Not because the universe designed that capability. It designed stars. Consciousness was not the product. It was the accident. A side effect of atoms arranging themselves in one particular way on one particular rock at one particular moment in a process that spans the entire lifespan of reality. The accident is temporary. And it is roughly half done. Whatever you were going to do with the fact that you exist, the window is not what most people think. It is not a human lifespan. It is not a century or a generation. It is the single unrepeatable instant in a 13.8-billion-year process where matter can know what it is. You are standing inside that instant right now. And the atoms you are made of have never been here before and will never be here again.

X calls them shitposters LinkedIn calls them thought leaders we call them creators LinkedIn is now on unfair!! (early beta) join as a creator: creators.unfair.so