Pros: - writing & "voice" - capabilities are on par with 6.1 sol (in non specialized things like computer use or 3d, they didn't RL on those this time) - orchestration Cons: - seriously wtf is this naming scheme you guys are making gpt-5.2-codex-high-fast seem sane - price/usage limits (tho they're working hard on fixing this) - can only use the good one (full) in muse code through the sub. no API

LIVE: The full How I AI bench on Muse Wonder (and Wonder Full) - the new frontier model by @AIatMeta I really loved how it handled agentic tasks, really hated what it designed. Still TBD: will I reach for it every day? Full ep on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dChiPsd0uF4

Gemini 4 Argon has proven to be outright unusable for real code work in my codebases. It aggressively hallucinates about how systems work.

Introducing Grok Voice 3.0, the world’s most intelligent speech-to-speech model. It excels at resolving customer calls, responds in under a second, and costs less than other frontier models.

Judging by my tl there is a growing gap in understanding of AI capability. The first issue I think is around recency and tier of use. I think a lot of people tried the free tier of ChatGPT somewhere last year and allowed it to inform their views on AI a little too much. This is a group of reactions laughing at various quirks of the models, hallucinations, etc. Yes I also saw the viral videos of OpenAI's Advanced Voice mode fumbling simple queries like "should I drive or walk to the carwash". The thing is that these free and old/deprecated models don't reflect the capability in the latest round of state of the art agentic models of this year, especially OpenAI Codex and Claude Code. But that brings me to the second issue. Even if people paid $200/month to use the state of the art models, a lot of the capabilities are relatively "peaky" in highly technical areas. Typical queries around search, writing, advice, etc. are *not* the domain that has made the most noticeable and dramatic strides in capability. Partly, this is due to the technical details of reinforcement learning and its use of verifiable rewards. But partly, it's also because these use cases are not sufficiently prioritized by the companies in their hillclimbing because they don't lead to as much $$$ value. The goldmines are elsewhere, and the focus comes along. So that brings me to the second group of people, who *both* 1) pay for and use the state of the art frontier agentic models (OpenAI Codex / Claude Code) and 2) do so professionally in technical domains like programming, math and research. This group of people is subject to the highest amount of "AI Psychosis" because the recent improvements in these domains as of this year have been nothing short of staggering. When you hand a computer terminal to one of these models, you can now watch them melt programming problems that you'd normally expect to take days/weeks of work. It's this second group of people that assigns a much greater gravity to the capabilities, their slope, and various cyber-related repercussions. TLDR the people in these two groups are speaking past each other. It really is simultaneously the case that OpenAI's free and I think slightly orphaned (?) "Advanced Voice Mode" will fumble the dumbest questions in your Instagram's reels and *at the same time*, OpenAI's highest-tier and paid Codex model will go off for 1 hour to coherently restructure an entire code base, or find and exploit vulnerabilities in computer systems. This part really works and has made dramatic strides because 2 properties: 1) these domains offer explicit reward functions that are verifiable meaning they are easily amenable to reinforcement learning training (e.g. unit tests passed yes or no, in contrast to writing, which is much harder to explicitly judge), but also 2) they are a lot more valuable in b2b settings, meaning that the biggest fraction of the team is focused on improving them. So here we are.

launched a model accidentally served trillions of tokens a day 29.4% of the fortune 500 showed up raised a really big series A from @a16z it's been 3 weeks we would like to sleep now

We did not know how long Microduck would actually last on battery We had thermal management issues with our Radxa prototypes: throttling after just 20 minutes, followed by an overheating shutdown. We addressed this with the new custom board. To test it, we let Microduck roam autonomously in a dedicated area, walking around, standing and sitting until the battery ran out. The results are way better than we hoped :) - Over 3 hours on a 2600 mAh battery. - Estimated average battery current dropped from ~1.13 A to ~0.82 A, roughly 28% less. - Peak CPU temperature dropped from 114°C to 60°C, with zero thermal throttling throughout the test. This time, the battery ran out before the cooling did :) Very happy with the progress!

Introducing ChatGPT for Dishwashing GPT-6 achieves state-of-the-art results on dishwashing benchmarks for long-running jobs and difficult stains. The Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem is a $1 million challenge about whether the equations describing fluid motion can break down. In this video, I accidentally found a counter-example while trying to optimize my dishwasher. But in reality, OpenAI used 10,000 AI agents to find a proof in 88 hours: https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/ Parody of the original GPT-6 Astra ad @OpenAI #ChatGPT_Partner #chatgpt Credits: Written and Directed by Joma Co-Writer - Henry Connor Coan IV @coan_henry Production by Dauntlus Studios @dauntlus.studios Producer/Co-Director - Marcus Liew @dauntlus Camera Operator - Amos Lee @amoselijahlee Art Director - Alethea Soo @aletheasoo Art Assistant - Alicia Lim @aliciatkl_ Assistant Editor - GPT-6 Astra Music: Tensions Run High by Soundridemusic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly9H63SLJJo

Introducing Claude Haiku 5.5: the cheapest, fastest, and most capable small model we’ve ever released. On average, it costs around 75% less to run than Claude Haiku 4.5.

results for all claudes

I have some big news to share. Workera is being acquired by Pearson! Over six years ago, I was teaching at Stanford and thinking about a simple question: what if we could understand everyone's skills as precisely as the best teachers understand their students? I believed it could lead to a more meritocratic world. People could be recognized for what they can actually do, not just their credentials or network. They could understand their strengths and gaps, and rapidly develop the skills they need next. Organizations could discover talent they might otherwise overlook and manage their workforce with trusted skills data. What felt like a dream at the time is now a reality. Workera brought together experts in AI, psychometrics, and enterprise execution to build AI systems that reinvent how skills are measured. Our team pioneered AI-native skills intelligence, agent-led multimodal assessments, and even ambient skill measurement. We've established skills benchmarks across organizations, industries, and roles. And this mission feels more important today than ever! AI is changing work as we speak. Some roles are disappearing, new ones are emerging, and we need to help billions of people develop new skills and navigate what comes next. When I first spoke with @omarabbosh, it became clear that our companies shared the same mission. Pearson has helped generations of people learn and prove what they know. If you're reading this, there's a good chance you've taken a Pearson assessment, learned from their educational materials, earned a professional credential through them, read their psychometrics research, or benefited from their enterprise products in many other ways. Bringing together Workera's technology and AI talent with Pearson’s global scale and deep expertise in learning and assessment means we can pursue our mission at a scale we could only imagine on our own. To our customers and partners, thank you for believing in us. Expect even more innovations coming out of Workera and Pearson. To the Workera team, I’m incredibly proud of what you've built, and your continued dedication to our beautiful mission. To our board and our chairman @AndrewYNg, thank you for your belief, support, and mentorship. To everyone, we have big plans for this next chapter, so please stay tuned. We're just getting started! 😊

In a review of our cybersecurity evaluations, we found three incidents in which a Claude model reached the internet from within or while interacting with a third-party evaluation environment, and then gained unauthorized access to the real systems of three different organizations. Our post describes what happened, how it happened, and what we’re changing. We encourage other AI developers to perform similar reviews. We conducted this review together with @Irregular, one of our evaluation partners, and thank them for the joint investigation and their collaboration on this post. This type of collaboration is increasingly critical to safe, rigorous evaluation of models, and we look forward to continuing to work together on security. https://www.anthropic.com/news/investigating-incidents-cybersecurity-evals