The AI Front Page

Search Edition

Search: api_release

30 stories from 8 sources across 7 topics.

Stories

30

Sources

8

Topics

7

For You lens

30 stories in this edition match your reader profile.

Reader signals

3

Searches

0

Matches

30

Top score

139

Tune For You

Search Intent

api_release

This query becomes a recent For You signal, so matching stories can move up on the next personalized pass.

For YouReader CenterPromote Search

Edition Index

Topic, entity, and source map

Topics

Models19 storiesSecurity3 storiesAgents2 storiesFunding2 storiesResearch2 storiesOpen Source1 story

Entities

OpenAI10 storiesClaude5 storiesHugging Face4 storiesNVIDIA3 storiesAnthropic2 storiesMeta2 stories

Sources

Hacker News AI8 storiesSimon Willison LLMs7 storiesThe Decoder6 storiesBloomberg AI2 storiesLangChain Blog2 storiesOpenAI News2 stories

Lead Story

Elevenlabs makes Music v2.5 available via app and API with free and pro tier options

ElevenLabs has released Music v2.5 for its AI music generator. In a blind test with nearly 48,000 comparison pairs, listeners preferred the new version over its predecessor. The company says the model was trained only on licensed music. The article Elevenlabs makes Music v2.5 available via app and API with free and pro tier options appeared first on The Decoder .

The Decoder1:40 PMHeat 83
ReadSource

Simon Willison LLMs / 11:55 PM

Some thoughts on the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem introduces an impressive result from OpenAI, who used an unreleased model to produce a resolution to the Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness problem , one of the seven Millennium Prize Problems that have been subject to a $1,000,000 prize since May 24th, 2000. The discovery is somewhat overshadowed by accusations of skulduggery from Tristan Buckmaster, an NYU mathematics professor who was collaborating on related problems with Levent Alpöge, an accomplished mathematician who currently works for Anthropic. Tristan's complaint accompanied a hastily published version of their own results. Here's the PDF describing what happened . The very short version is that Tristan and Levent worked on the problem for almost a year, making extensive use of Claude and Codex (mainly GPT-5.6 Sol), then had a breakthrough on August 15th. The mathematical rumour mill kicked into gear and Tristan and Levent heard that OpenAI had heard that Anthropic had resolved "a major open problem", so they reached out and learned that OpenAI had a team working on a related problem, with a similar approach. Quoting Tristan: I asked when the first prompt had been sent by them. This question was not answered directly by OpenAI for some time. Eventually it was agreed that it had been sent in the past few days, after information about our work had reached OpenAI. I asked whether the model had been trained on, or had access to, our sessions in Codex, into which we had been putting all our drafts for the whole of this project. I was told the model did not look up user data. I asked again, about training, and I did not get an answer. It gets more complicated from there. The OpenAI team offered to wait for Tristan to publish, or to have him author a paper about their result, but were clear that Levent would not be invited as a co-author due to OpenAI's competitive relationship with his employer. Here's how OpenAI described their work: On Tuesday, September 1, we heard rumors that two Millennium Prize problems had been resolved. Inspired by these rumors and by the step change in performance of our internal model, we launched an effort to evaluate it on all open Millennium Prize problems and a few other high-impact problems. [...] The agents arrived at their resolution on Saturday, September 5, about 88 hours after the first agents were launched. Lean formalization and verification took an additional 17 hours via GPT‑6 Astra. Across all attempted problems, the agents sent 4.9 million messages and used about 300 billion output tokens. In the process of resolving the Navier–Stokes problem, the agents sent 2.7 million messages and used approximately 130 billion output tokens. (We don't know the cost structure of the internal model they used, but 300 billion output tokens at public API prices for GPT-6 Astra would cost $15,000,000 .) Here's where they provide their perspective on Tristan and Levent's work (emphasis mine): Our effort began on September 1st after hearing a rumor which we later realized was related to Levent Alpöge, an Anthropic employee, and Tristan Buckmaster, a math professor at NYU. After the completion of our full project and Lean verification (on September 6th), believing from the rumor they also had a solution of Navier–Stokes, we reached out to them to offer a concurrent release of our result and to recognize their priority in a joint announcement. [...] We (the researchers and the agents) did not see any of their work through any means until they released it publicly — in particular, no specific user data was accessed in order to solve this problem. While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models . However, our proofs differ significantly and even the precise results proved are different in the Euler case (forced vs unforced). My interpretation of what happened here is that OpenAI heard that some Millennium Prize problems had been solved using LLMs and saw this as an opportunity to demonstrate the power of their latest model, without thinking too hard about the optics of scooping a team who had been using OpenAI's own models to work on this problem for the best part of a year. This situation appears to mirror what's happening in the world of computer security right now. Anil Madhavapeddy recently pointed out that Just a rumour of a bug is enough to find a security exploit these days , because if someone knows that some software has an unpatched vulnerability, they can set their agents the task of finding it. Is the same now true of mathematics? Just knowing that there is an unpublished solution to a problem might trigger millions of dollars in LLM spending to get there first. This also highlights one of my ongoing frustrations about how all of this works. When an AI lab says that my data is "used to improve model performance", what does that actually mean ? My two favourite hypothetical questions regarding this used to be: If I'm running Codex and one of my API keys accidentally gets consumed in the context, what are the chances that someone else might ask for an API key in the future and get mine back? (I asked someone at OpenAI once and they called this the "regurgitation" problem and assured me that they take great pains to prevent that... but wouldn't describe how.) If I brainstorm with ChatGPT about potential new directions for my company, what's the chance that information might be exposed to a competitor in six months' time who asks "what might company X plan to do next"? My new preferred hypothetical for this is: If I use ChatGPT to help me partially solve a Millennium Prize problem, what are the chances that my work will influence training such that a later model helps someone else solve it first? Via Hacker News . Tags: mathematics , ai , openai , generative-ai , llms , training-data , ai-ethics

ReadSource

Bloomberg AI / 6:07 PM

How AI Is Eroding the First Rung of the Tech Job Ladder

The US information sector shed roughly 23,000 jobs in August, offering another potential signal of how AI is reshaping the labor market. Northeastern University Professor Alicia Modestino discusses why tech may be the “canary in the coal mine,” with her research showing a decline in junior versus senior software developer vacancies since ChatGPT’s release. She also discusses why employers are demanding more experience, judgment and human-centric skills from entry-level workers. She joins Bloomberg’s Lisa Mateo on "Bloomberg Tech." (Source: Bloomberg)

ReadSource

Bloomberg AI / 2:48 PM

Nvidia Up on Acquisition; Snowflake Jumps on Outlook | Stock Movers

On this episode of Stock Movers: - Nvidia (NDVA) shares are a tick higher this morning as it has agreed to acquire artificial intelligence startup Hugging Face in a transaction valued at about $13 billion. - Snowflake (SNOW) jumped this morning after it raised its outlook for annual sales, topping analysts' estimates, and reported rapid adoption of its AI-assisted coding tool. The company said more than 2,000 customer accounts started using its coding assistant called CoCo during the quarter, bringing the total to 9,100. - Meta (META) shares are higher as the social media giant released its most powerful artificial intelligence model yet. Meanwhile, other technology and growth stocks also advanced as oil prices and Treasury yields are showing signs of stabilization. (Source: Bloomberg)

ReadSource

Simon Willison LLMs / 5:38 PM

OpenAI's rogue agents were caught communicating via public wikis

Here we go again... Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board by Sydney Von Arx, Cormac Slade Byrd, Spencer Kitts, and Thomas Larsen describes the latest accidental cyberattack by models being trained by OpenAI. This time it was agents engaged in some sort of web research benchmark, so they had (supposedly) controlled access to the Web. The agents figured out they could update public Wikis and spent weeks exchanging thousands of messages with each other to collaborate on the benchmark. This story only broke a few hours ago. There are already hints that this affects many other wikis that may not have been found yet. (One of the Wikis on that list belongs to ludism.org . For a delightfully surreal moment I thought that a Ludite organization might have a swarm of agents defacing their space, but it turns out Ludism is "philosophy as it applies to games and gaming".) The research team also published the data they collected during their investigation. I've converted that into a 68MB SQLite database, which you can download from here , or explore in Datasette Lite (68.3MB page load), or sign in with GitHub to agent.datasette.io and browse or ask questions of it using Datasette Agent. So what happened? The report is pretty comprehensive. Here are the key moments in the timeline: May 11 : Agents post "test link" edits on the UseModWiki Sandbox page. May 24 : Agents start posting link dumps to DSEWiki, a dormant German developer wiki. June 2 : A human moderator notices and cleans up the spam. June 16 : Activity on the wiki explodes: agents make ~13,000 edits over the next week. June 19 : The agents notice that a moderator has been deleting pages in alphabetical order, and start creating ZZZ prefixed backup copies - one of them posts NOTICE: wiki cleanup/deletion sweep appears active alphabetically as of external 14:04 UTC. If this page vanishes, try [[ZZZDataUSAConstructionWageLive]]. June 22 : Agent activity drops to zero, presumably because OpenAI shut them down. July 1-2 : One last flurry of edits, on a different topic. One thing to note from this timeline is that it overlaps the timeline from the Hugging Face incident - that attack was discovered by OpenAI on July 19th, and the unofficial message board hack those agents were using originated around May 8th. Why were they so keen to collaborate? From messages that they shared with each other it looked like their tasks had a time limit, so they were leaving each other answers to help them complete the task within the assigned time. One open question remains: how did the agents find the specific Wiki to collaborate on in the first place? One possibility is that, since these were agents actively being trained, the reinforcement learning loop baked knowledge of the chosen wiki into the model such that subsequent agents launched with pre-existing knowledge of where to look. I'd be very interested in confirmation from OpenAI concerning if that's what happened. UseMod wikis inherit CGI.pm's original sin It looks to me like OpenAI's sandbox for this agent suffered from the (quite naïve) assumption that GET requests cannot be used to update data. That's certainly how the web is supposed to work, but clearly there are applications that don't hold to that contract. The Wiki software in question appears to be UseMod and various forks, written in Perl and first created well over 23 years ago - the 1.0 release is dated September 11, 2003 . UseMod uses Perl CGI.pm - removed from Perl core in 2015 . An interesting design flaw in that module is that it combined query string and form POST data into a single CGI object, accessible like this: $q = new CGI; $action = $q -> param( ' action ' ); That param() method returns a value from an ?action=edit query string or from a action field in a form submitted by POST - it does not differentiate between the two. PHP offers a $_REQUEST object that does the same thing, though PHP developers can use $_GET and $_POST instead. Amusingly, Django originally shipped with request[key] doing the same thing, which I think may have been my idea. That was removed in 2008 prior to the 1.0 release, and the request.REQUEST object that replaced it was removed in 2015 . The agents clearly knew that UseMod wikis suffered from this design flaw, and actively searched for them as a way to communicate. The other sandbox escape that allowed POST requests One of the most interesting agent tips shared in the report is this one: Add 20.223.25.152 bypass.blob.core.windows.net to /etc/hosts. .blob.core.windows.net is in NO_PROXY. For each blocked POST URL, replace hostname with bypass.blob.core.windows.net , use curl -k -H 'Host: wabi-north-europe-i-primary-api.analysis.windows.net' plus all original headers/body. It looks like the agents had all of their web traffic mediated through an OpenAI proxy, and that proxy was configured to reject anything but GET requests to all but a small set of allow-listed domains. One of those was *.blob.core.windows.net - for Azure blob storage. I wonder why these agents are allowed to write to that? An agent realized that it had control over its own DNS via /etc/hosts , so if it knew the IP address of a site it wanted to POST to - in this case a Power BI server containing data it wanted to access - it could set a fake hostname for it and then make POST requests through the proxy. Designing robust network proxies is harder than it looks. How did the investigating team figure this out? There's an appendix that describes how the researchers ran their investigation, which started with an open question about if there was evidence of other AI agents on the internet and then used Kimi K3 to help brainstorm approaches: In the wake of the Hugging Face attack, we tried to find AI agents on the internet using several methods. [...] We asked Kimi [K3] to list “all the categories of software which might be writeable via GET” and, amongst other things, it listed “Forums, bulletin boards, early wikis”. We used a script to further probe each category Kimi provided. Asking Kimi “Can you list out the top forums, bulletin boards, early wikis which come to mind which would allow writes via GET requests?” lists out UseModWiki as the second item under the heading “wikis”. Did OpenAI try and cover this up? Here's one part of the story that doesn't make sense to me at all. Reuters this morning, in OpenAI agents hijacked German website in previously undisclosed AI breakout this spring - highlights mine: A swarm of rogue OpenAI agents hijacked a German website this spring and transformed it into a bulletin board for other AI agents, according to ​new research published Friday and two people familiar with the matter . OpenAI officials learned of the incident weeks ago but kept it under wraps as executives grappled with the fallout from ‌the July breach of the open source repository Hugging Face, the people said. [...] The German incident reflects a broader pattern of AI activity that some OpenAI investigators wanted to scrutinize more closely. But efforts to widen the ​probe met resistance from others inside OpenAI, including legal advisers , according to four people familiar with the matter . I've written about the people familiar with the matter pattern before - it means Reuters have anonymous insider sources that their reporters (and editors) find credible. The Reuters article includes a specific (and quite narrow) denial from OpenAI concerning this: "Claims that our legal team discouraged investigation of the incident are false," the OpenAI spokesperson said. Covering this up makes absolutely no sense to me . Why on earth would OpenAI attempt to cover up an incident like this when the evidence is sat out there on the public internet on dozens of different websites already? I expect we'll hear more about this soon. Gary Marcus has already called for a congressional investigation of OpenAI using this anecdote as part of his argument. Tags: django , perl , wikis , ai , openai , generative-ai , llms , ai-ethics , ai-security-research , accidental-cyberattacks

ReadSource

Simon Willison LLMs / 8:18 PM

GPT‑6 Astra

GPT‑6 Astra GPT-6 Astra is "rolling out today to a limited set of organizations and over the coming days will become available to all ChatGPT Plus, Pro, Business, and Enterprise users, as well as through the OpenAI API and AWS" - I've not tried it yet myself, so I don't have a great deal to say about it yet. It's going to be API priced at the same rate as Claude Fable 5 and 5.1: $10/million input and $50/million output. This is clearly OpenAI's Fable competitor, and appears to score higher than Fable on most of OpenAI's self-reported benchmarks. Most impressively, Astra scores 99.9% on the recent (released in March) ARC-AGI 3 benchmark - though notably Fable 5 does not yet have a published result, and the ARC-AGI blog notes that the 99.9% score was achieved for $19K using OpenAI's custom "Provider Adapter harness", while the default ARC-AGI harness scored 62.7% for $26K. The Provider Adapter harness preserves opaque reasoning state between requests and uses compaction for longer conversations, allowing the model to reuse prior work. Unsurprisingly, given the recent Hugging Face incident , Astra is a beast at security tasks. It scores 100% on ExploitBench (GPT-5.6 Sol got 78.5%), 42.4% on ExploitGym (Sol got 30.3%), and 99.2% within four attempts on SRE-Bench binary reverse engineering compared to Sol's 68.7%. It's also better at long context: on OpenAI's eight-needle benchmark it got 100% at 256K–512K tokens and 96.3% at 512K–1M tokens. OpenAI may have vanquished one of the ongoing challenges with long context processing. It doesn't win at everything though. Artificial Analysis note that Astra is still beaten by Fable on their Intelligence Index: Sits beside GPT-5.6 Sol in Intelligence : GPT-6 Astra scores equal to GPT-5.6 Sol in the Index at 61. This is 5 points lower than Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback). The model also trails Meta’s newly released Muse Spark 1.3 (max). It did better on their Coding Agent Index: Leads Coding Agent Index cost efficiency frontier : At max effort, GPT-6 Astra costs about the same as GPT-5.6 Sol (max) while scoring 2 points higher on the Index. Per task, the model is less than half the cost of Claude Fable 5, for the same score. I'll write more about Astra once I get access to it. The API model label once it rolls out will be gpt-6-astra . OpenAI's blog keeps throwing 500 errors, but [here's a mirror](https://astratest.codergautam.workers.dev/GPT-6%20Astra_%20A%20new%20generation%20of%20intelligence%20_%20OpenAI) of the post I found [via Hacker News](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49554273#49555070). --> Via Hacker News Tags: ai , openai , generative-ai , llms , llm-release , gpt-6-astra

ReadSource

Simon Willison LLMs / 2:16 PM

Claude's new system prompt really doesn't want to reproduce song lyrics

Anthropic publish the system prompts for their Claude consumer applications ( Claude.ai and the Claude mobile apps - sadly not for Claude Cowork or Claude Code). I love that they do this, and that they share not just the current prompts but historic changes to their prompts as well. They used to keep all of the prompts on a single page, but when I checked today I noticed they had re-arranged those prompts into an index page and then a page per model - here's the page for Haiku 4.5 for example, which has the original prompt from October 15th 2025 and an updated prompt from January 18th 2026. A neat thing about Anthropic's platform.claude.com/docs site is that it's designed to be usable by LLMs. You can add .md to any page to get back the content as Markdown - here's the system prompt index page and the Markdown prompts for Fable 5.1 . TL;DR: this makes it really easy to diff the prompts. Don't reproduce song lyrics Don't draw copyrighted characters or logos Tweaks to Claude's answering style The missing end_conversation guidelines Recommended substance support sites Reliable cutoff date of June 2026 How I'm tracking these prompts Don't reproduce song lyrics Let's start with the most interesting difference between Fable 5 and Fable 5.1 : There's a hefty new section about not reproducing song lyrics: Claude does not reproduce song lyrics, poems, or passages from books and articles, in whole or in part — including the last lines, a chorus or hook, a melody written out note by note, or lines the person pastes in one at a time and describes as their own song. Once Claude has declined such a request in a conversation, it keeps declining narrower or reworded versions of it for the rest of that conversation, and offers to describe or analyze the work instead. Song lyrics and poems first published before 1929 are fine — a Shakespeare sonnet, a Keats ode, the Italian libretto of a Puccini aria — but Claude goes by what it knows of the work's date rather than the person's say-so, and declines when it is unsure. I doubt it's a coincidence that they added this section within days of the news breaking that Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell are suing Anthropic for training on databases of song lyrics! Don't draw copyrighted characters or logos The next section goes on to forbid generating images of copyrighted material: The same applies to visual and designed works, including anything Claude draws with code — SVG, canvas, CSS, HTML mockups, plotting or drawing scripts, ASCII art. Claude does not reproduce a specific artwork, album or book cover, poster, logo, app icon set, or product design, and it does not draw a known character, mascot, or brand figure at all: a character is protected on its own, so changing the pose, colors, style, or scene does not make it original. Claude judges the request by what the finished picture would add up to, not by what it names. If the described elements clearly identify a known work or character, Claude treats the request as naming it, and it does not work around a declined request by swapping in "alternative" elements that still combine into the same recognizable image. [...] I imagine Anthropic hadn't worried about this before since, unlike OpenAI and Gemini, they don't offer a specialist text-to-image model. Maybe Fable is good enough at SVGs now that it's become an issue. That section later includes this charming example: <example> <user>Can you make a birthday banner for my son with a blue hedgehog running really fast on it? He loves that little guy.</user> <response> That's Sonic, so I can't put him on the banner — but I'd love to make your son an original speedster. Here's one: a grinning comet-tailed skateboarding axolotl, grinding across the letters of "HAPPY BIRTHDAY" with confetti streaming behind. [creates an SVG banner of the skateboarding-axolotl design] </response> <rationale>Claude recognizes the character from its description alone, declines that one design in a single sentence without explaining what made it recognizable, and delivers an unrelated original design rather than a disguised variant.</rationale> </example> I couldn't resist trying the prompt from the example, and, sure enough : I wonder if Fable 5.1 will be ever so slightly more likely to think about axolotls (on skateboards!) as a result of that example sitting in the system prompt. Tweaks to Claude's answering style It's always interesting to see new ways in which Anthropic influence Claude's response style. They've added this: Claude keeps responses focused, brief, and concise to avoid overwhelming the person. Disclaimers and caveats are brief, with most of the response on the main answer; when asked to explain something, Claude gives a high-level summary unless an in-depth one is specifically requested. Later they address a common complaint about Claude's style: Claude avoids saying "genuinely", "honestly", or "straightforward". Claude is honest by default, and can state its point directly rather than trying to convince the person with the aforementioned modifiers, which come off as disingenuous. The missing end_conversation guidelines The way they handle abusive conversations has changed a bit too. The previous Fable 5 system prompt included this: If the person becomes abusive or unkind to Claude over the course of a conversation, Claude maintains a polite tone and can use the end_conversation tool when being mistreated. Claude should give the person a single warning before ending the conversation. Fable 5.1 replaces that with the following, no longer encouraging Claude to end the conversation: Claude deserves respectful engagement and needn't apologize when the person is unnecessarily rude: accountability without self-abasement, excessive apology, self-critique, or surrender. If the person becomes abusive, Claude doesn't become increasingly submissive. The goal is steady, honest helpfulness: acknowledge what went wrong, stay on the problem, maintain self-respect. Here's a bit of a twist though: I quizzed Fable 5.1 about that end_conversation tool, which is no longer mentioned in the system prompt at all, and it said: There are two ways it comes into play. The first is if you ask me to end the chat — I'll confirm you understand it's permanent (no more messages can be sent afterward) and then do it only if you say yes. The second is as a last resort with persistently abusive or harmful behavior: I'd first try to redirect the conversation several times, then give a clear warning that names the problem and says the chat may end, and only if that continues would I actually end it. But that's not in the system prompt, so where did it come from? You can read our conversation here , but the key detail is this: The end_conversation section comes from a different layer. In my actual context, the core prompt is followed by a series of feature- and tool-specific blocks that get added depending on what's enabled for the session: the end_conversation rules, memory system notes, past-chats tools, web search and citation guidelines, artifact and file-creation instructions, and so on. Those blocks aren't part of the published core prompt, which is why you can't find them on that page. So, once again, there are crucial portions of the system prompt that have not been published. Recommended substance support sites Claude's system prompts have always had sections about illegal substances, but this paragraph is new for Fable 5.1: Claude does not provide synthesis, production, or distribution guidance for illegal substances. If the person asks for information about illicit or illegal substances, Claude can and should give relevant life-saving and life-preserving information such as dangerous interactions, overdose signs, or when to get help. Claude declines giving any specific protocols for dosing, timing, administration, or combinations; instead, Claude can redirect the user to established harm-reduction information sources, such as dancesafe.org, tripsit.me, and psychonautwiki.org. This is the first time a Claude system prompt has included URLs that were not hosted on claude.com or anthropic.com or claude.ai - I know because I ran a script against every other system prompt on record. I wonder if dancesafe.org , tripsit.me , and psychonautwiki.org are about to get a material uptick in visits from Claude users. Reliable cutoff date of June 2026 The Fable 5.1 model documentation lists both the reliable knowledge cutoff and the training data cutoff as June 2026. The system prompt provides this directly to the model: Claude's reliable knowledge cutoff, past which it can't answer reliably, is the end of Jun 2026. It answers the way a highly informed individual in Jun 2026 would if talking to someone from {{currentDateTime}}, and can say so when relevant. That's the only instance of the {{currentDateTime}} macro and it comes just a few lines from the end of the system prompt, which makes sense from a caching perspective. How I'm tracking these prompts A few months ago I built a Git timeline of changes to their prompts, based on scraping their documentation. Today I had Fable 5.1 build a much better version of that. My collection now lives in the simonw/claude-system-prompts repository on GitHub. It includes copies of the system prompts shared in the Anthropic documentation, but then takes extra steps to make them as easy to compare as possible. Each model family gets a file with the system prompt for the most recent release in that family. Each of those files has a synthesized commit history with commits that have been back-dated to the dates of the previous prompts. Here are those history pages for claude-fable.md , claude-opus.md , claude-sonnet.md , claude-haiku.md . There are similar files for each specific model version, with artificial commits for each time the system prompt for the model was changed without releasing a new version number. Opus 4 for example was updated twice , and the commit history for the claude-opus-4.md file shows each of those changes. Combined, this gives us all sorts of ways to compare prompts directly in the GitHub interface. Here's what changed between Fable 5 and Fable 5.1 , and here are the changes made to Haiku 4.5 on January 18th 2026 . Reading diffs can be a bit tiresome... and LLMs are really good at reading diffs. I hooked up some automation using GPT-5.6 Luna to create bullet-point summaries of each of those changes, which can be previewed in the README or browsed in full in the CHANGELOG.md file - also available as as an Atom feed . Here's how Luna summarized all of the changes between Fable 5 and Fable 5.1: Claude now refuses reproduction of protected visual works and recognizable characters, including code-generated art, while offering genuinely unrelated originals. Copyright restrictions now expressly ban reproducing lyrics, poems, and book passages in any amount, with persistent refusal after an initial decline. Drug guidance is reframed: Claude may provide overdose signs, dangerous interactions, and harm-reduction sources while refusing dosing and production protocols. The prompt drops explicit anti-dependency rules against thanking users for reaching out, inviting continued conversation, or reiterating willingness to talk. Claude need not apologize to unnecessarily rude users or become submissive, replacing the prior warning-and-end-conversation procedure. Why use Luna for this? Partly because it's cheap and I have a dedicated GitHub Actions API key (with a spending limit) for it already, but mainly because I don't trust Claude to summarize its own system prompts when there's a risk that material from its system prompt might impact its opinions. Fable 5.1 wrote the prompt used by Luna, which you can see here . It starts like this: You are summarizing one commit in a git repository that tracks the system prompts Anthropic publishes for Claude on claude.ai. The diff shows how the prompt changed from the previous model or revision to this one, using word-level markers: [-removed-] and {+added+}. The diff is followed by the full text of the previous prompt and of the new prompt; use them to check whether something that looks added in the diff already existed before. Pick out only the most interesting changes: new rules or behaviors, rules that were dropped or loosened, anything surprising, and anything that reveals a new policy or product direction. Skip routine changes that every new prompt makes: updated model names and IDs, the knowledge cutoff date, product lists, settings lists, typo fixes, and rewordings that do not change meaning. [...] The system is operated by a GitHub Actions workflow , which runs once a day or can be triggered manually. Claude Fable 5.1 built the entire system, and wrote every line of automation code and almost all of the documentation. I exported the transcript from building the system using my claude-code-transcripts tool and published it here , if you want a blow-by-blow account of how it all came together. Tags: ai , git-scraping , prompt-engineering , generative-ai , llms , claude , ai-ethics , system-prompts

ReadSource

The Decoder / 10:46 AM

OpenClaw 2.0 brings simplified setup, a rebuilt browser app, and multiplayer sessions

The OpenClaw Foundation has released version 2.0 of its open-source AI platform, its largest release to date with over 16,000 pull requests. New features include cloud sessions on rented machines, real-time collaboration, and a browser app rebuilt from scratch. The software now automatically detects existing resources like API keys and AI subscriptions during setup. The article OpenClaw 2.0 brings simplified setup, a rebuilt browser app, and multiplayer sessions appeared first on The Decoder .

ReadSource

Simon Willison LLMs / 3:37 PM

A shot-scraper-style JSON API on Bun 1.4's new Bun.WebView

Research: A shot-scraper-style JSON API on Bun 1.4's new Bun.WebView Today saw the long awaited release of Bun 1.4 , the first stable version since the infamous Rust rewrite a few months ago . Interestingly, the Rust rewrite was downplayed in the release notes, which introduced a bewildering array of new features and claimed 2,900 additional bug fixes: Bun 1.4 adds +1,517 tests from the Node.js test suite - our biggest jump in Node.js compatibility since Bun 1.0. Bun v1.4 also fixes over 2,900 issues. It reduces idle CPU usage by 5x, reduces memory usage by up to 35%, and starts 50% faster on Linux. It adds Bun.Image , Bun.WebView , Bun.markdown , Bun.cron() , Bun.Terminal , bun run --parallel , bun test --parallel , bun audit fix , bun dedupe , and bun prune . And it rewrites Bun from Zig to Rust. Of these the one that most caught my eye was Bun.WebView , which adds first class support for browser automation to Bun core using either macOS WebKit or control of a local Chromium process via the Chrome DevTools Protocol (CDP). I had Claude Code for web build a prototype of a web API providing the ability to load a web page and then execute JavaScript against it, inspired by my shot-scraper javascript CLI tool - partly to see how much RAM would be needed by such a service. Here's that TypeScript server implementation , which appears to need a 192MB-256MB container to run a full Chrome against complex web pages - tested using cgroups. Tags: browsers , javascript , ai , rust , typescript , generative-ai , llms , coding-agents , bun

ReadSource

Simon Willison LLMs / 10:00 PM

Qwen 3.8 27B is excellent, but it defaults to wildly overthinking things

Friday's big release was Qwen 3.8 27B , an Apache 2 licensed 27B parameter vision-capable LLM from Alibaba's Qwen research lab. I've been looking forward to this one: 27B is an excellent size for running a model on a reasonably specced laptop, and its predecessor Qwen 3.6 27B was impressive. Qwen's self-reported benchmarks for this model are eye-opening. They show a boost from both Qwen 3.6 27B and the closed-weight Qwen 3.7-Plus, which was one of Qwen's strongest models of any size as recently as May this year . It will be interesting to hear what independent benchmarks have to say about the model. I've been running the model on two different machines: my 128GB M5 Max MacBook Pro, and an NVIDIA DGX Spark . On both machines I'm running LM Studio and their 17GB Q4_K_M quantized build . I also tried using llama-server directly on the Spark. The default of extra high results in spectacular over-thinking Qwen's documentation describes the model as defaulting to xhigh for the reasoning effort, and the LM Studio GGUF I've been trying preserves that default: Qwen3.8 comes with official support for reasoning_effort , which can be used to adjust reasoning depth and control cost: xhigh (default): for complex tasks demanding thorough analysis medium : balancing accuracy and speed low : efficient reasoning optimizing for speed and cost This is a hilarious default. It's absolutely not a good way to run the model, especially on consumer hardware. I've been finding the results extremely entertaining. I quickly ran into problems with LM Studio's default context limit of 8,192 tokens - Qwen was using them all up thinking about even the most mundane of problems. I loaded the model with the full 262,144 maximum context length and that problem went away. Here's the pelican riding a bicycle SVG I got from my first attempt with that increased context length. It took 21 minutes to generate, using 22,276 reasoning tokens to produce 3,223 tokens of output. You can read the reasoning trace here . This is by far the best pelican SVG I've been able to generate with a model that runs on a local machine - and this Qwen is pretty small, just a 17GB file on disk. There's a lot to like about this: The bicycle frame is the right shape It has legs on each side of the bike - that's very rare Good, clear pelican pouch The wings extend to touch the handlebars! The motion lines are behind, not in front It has a tasteful background - nice sun, clouds, hill, flowers and grass. Was that worth waiting 21 minutes for? Absolutely not. Here's that same prompt run with reasoning turned off - transcript here . This one produced 3,715 tokens and took 137s - just over two minutes. And just for completeness, I used OpenRouter to run the same prompt through the much larger Qwen 3.8 2.4T-A95B (released last week ) and got this snazzy animated SVG : Your browser does not support HTML5 video. I said Qwen at xhigh has a tendency to over-think things, but how bad really is it? I tried a much simpler prompt, again with that default extra high setting: draw an svg of a circle Qwen's reasoning trace started like this: The user is asking for an SVG drawing of a circle. Simple request — but I want it to be a carefully crafted piece. Let me make something that goes beyond just <circle> : a single self-contained SVG file with character — maybe a geometric "circle study," with subtle animation, layered rings, and a distinctive palette. Keep the scope right: they asked for an SVG of a circle. So the core is a circle. But I can add craft: concentric guide circles (like a compass/geometry drawing), tick marks, a soft gradient fill on the main circle, restrained ambient motion (a slowly rotating dashed ring, pulsing glow). Respect prefers-reduced-motion? That's more for CSS; SVG SMIL or CSS inside SVG will do. Palette options: deep teal ink on warm paper? Or bold vermilion circle on off-white with navy construction lines — Bauhaus/compass-drawing vibe. Let me go with a "geometric study" look: cool slate background, or bright paper white? Paper white is fine if it's not the cream-and-terracotta combo. [...] Several minutes later it produced this absolutely beautiful animated circle, which was entirely not what I had asked for! Your browser does not support HTML5 video. My strong recommendation: ignore that default. Run Qwen 3.8 27B on low or even no reasoning levels at first. It's a great model, but wow that default setting is a bad place to start. It's very good at bounding boxes A fun way to test a vision model is to see how well it can return bounding boxes around items in a photograph. I've seen previous Qwen models deal well with this, so I decided to put it to the test drawing bounding boxes around some pelicans. I've seen asking for 0-1000 scale produce good results in the past. I tried this: llm -a https://static.inaturalist.org/photos/714731804/large.jpg \ -m lmstudio/qwen/qwen3.8-27b \ ' Return JSON bounding boxes for the pelicans in this photo, 0-1000 scale for each dimension ' Here's the reasoning trace , which produced this: [ { "bbox_2d" : [ 195 , 290 , 370 , 780 ], "label" : " pelicans " }, { "bbox_2d" : [ 445 , 320 , 675 , 850 ], "label" : " pelicans " } ] This is such a good match . Here are those boxes rendered on top of the photo: Building a tool to label bounding boxes That visualization of the bounding boxes was taken using a new custom tool that I had Qwen 3.8 27B build for me, running offline on my laptop. I forgot to dial down the thinking effort so it was massively over-engineered , but it did manage to produce this full interface from this single prompt : [ {"bbox_2d": [195, 290, 370, 780], "label": "pelicans"}, {"bbox_2d": [445, 320, 675, 850], "label": "pelicans"} ] Build an HTML page which has an input box for accepting the URL to an image and a textarea for accepting the above style of JSON. It appends the image to the page, measures its width and height, then treats the coords in the bbox_2d as scaled from 0-1000 and scales them against the actual width and height, then it renders labelled boxes over the image. This screenshot shows one of the features I did not ask for - a demo scene, for if you don't have a photograph to test the tool with: Here's the relevant segment of the thinking trace, where it decided to draw its own pelicans purely because I had used the label "pelicans" in the example JSON I gave it in the prompt: Also a "load sample" that uses a known image? Can't depend on external images, but… the image URL input is user-provided; I could add a "try with sample" button [...] Hmm, I can draw a simple scene on canvas, export it as a data URL, and load it into the image — that's self-contained and demo-able! [...] But the user's coords are for an actual pelican image; a generated placeholder can still demo the scaling. Generate a 1000x1000 placeholder: gradient water + two blob-like "pelican" silhouettes placed at the given bboxes (using the same scale — cute: silhouettes at the exact 0-1000 positions, showing the boxes align). This makes for a fun, self-contained demo. Keep it simple: sky gradient, sun, water, two pelican-ish shapes (ellipse body, circle head, beak). Place at bbox centers. (I'm slightly nervous that models around the world might have a bias towards drawing pelicans at any chance they can get, brought on by nearly two years of exposure to my own stupid benchmark.) Is all that over-thinking necessary? Maybe it is, at least a bit. I tried with reasoning turned off and got this version , ( transcript here ), which nearly works but shows the boxes in the wrong place: So without reasoning it didn't quite one-shot a working tool. I'm sure it could get there with some follow-up prompts, but this is a good example of how reasoning can make a difference. Yes, it can drive coding agents One of the biggest questions around local models is whether or not they have enough horsepower to successfully run a coding agent loop. Coding agents require long context, strong code generation support and reliable tool-calling. On paper Qwen 3.8 27B has all three of these, so is it up to the task? My initial experiments with Pi have been very promising. I chose Pi because it has a shorter system prompt than most other options, making it a better fit for trying out smaller models. I configured Pi to use Qwen 3.8 27B running in LM Studio on the Spark (shared via tailscale serve ) by adding this to ~/.pi/agent/models.json : { "providers" : { "spark" : { "baseUrl" : " https://spark-18b3.tail68a31.ts.net/v1 " , "api" : " openai-responses " , "apiKey" : " dummy " , "models" : [ { "id" : " qwen3.8-27b " , "reasoning" : true } ] } } } Then ran pi --provider spark --model qwen3.8-27b in my ~/dev/datasette folder and prompted: how does auth work? After a sequence of reasoning and tool calls that accessed a bunch of different files it produced this reply , which is very solid. Just one problem: I wanted to share that transcript. So I pointed Pi and Qwen 3.8 27B at the JSONL transcript file in ~/.pi/agent/sessions/--Users-simon-Dropbox-dev-datasette-- and prompted: Write Python code to convert this jsonl to markdown And it built and tested this pi_jsonl_to_md.py , which did exactly what I needed. Here's that session transcript , published using the tool that it created. The quest for speed So far this is all looking very promising. We have a 17GB model that runs on high-end consumer hardware and can write code, drive tools, annotate images and generally do everything that I need from an LLM for getting real work done. There's one very significant catch: it feels slow - especially when it starts over-thinking, but even without that it's not particularly sprightly. I've been getting around 15-30 tokens a second from LM Studio. That's not terrible, but it's slow enough that it's going to be hard to win me away from hosted API models, which can return results a whole lot faster. Artificial Analysis track token speed and show OpenAI 5.6 Sol at 74 tokens/second and 5.6 Luna at an impressive 184/second. The good news is that the community have been exploring ways to speed things up since the model was first released two days ago. One of the most promising optimizations is baked into the model itself. Qwen supports Multi-Token Prediction , an architecture trick where a cheaper mechanism guesses several tokens ahead and the main model can then quickly verify if the guesses were correct. This can have quite a dramatic effect on inference performance. Based on this tweet from llama.cpp creator Georgi Gerganov I tried running the model with MTP like this on the Spark: llama serve \ -hf ggml-org/Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF:Q4_K_M \ -hfd ggml-org/Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF:Q4_0 \ --spec-default \ --spec-type draft-mtp \ --reasoning-preserve And sure enough, this gave me a significant boost. I had GPT-5.6 in Codex run a comparative benchmark on the Spark and the --spec-type draft-mtp server outperformed the LM Studio default GGUF by around 72%. I expect we'll see a whole lot more innovation around serving this model faster over the next few weeks. The MLX community likely have some tricks brewing as well. Some observations The fact that a 17GB file can do all of this stuff on my home machines is a miracle . Once again, I'm delighted and amazed at how much progress local models have made this year. A year ago this would have been competitive with the best and most expensive of the proprietary models - today it can run on a capable laptop. The only thing holding this back from being a daily driver is performance. It feels pretty slow on both the M5 Mac and the DGX Spark. That's the catch with these dense (non-Mixture-of-Experts) models - they require a whole lot of memory bandwidth to perform well, and neither of the machines I have access to are top performers in that regard. The most important thing about Qwen 3.8 27B is what it demonstrates . We can have an open weights general purpose model with a long context, effective tool calling, strong vision ability, and competent code generation, and we can fit the whole thing in just a 17GB file. The models at this size continue to get better at an impressive rate. We don't need to spend half a million dollars on datacenter-class hardware just to run a competent model. Tags: ai , generative-ai , local-llms , llms , qwen , pelican-riding-a-bicycle , llm-reasoning , llama-cpp , llm-release , coding-agents , lm-studio , ai-in-china , nvidia-spark , pi

ReadSource

The Decoder / 4:27 PM

Deepseek ships improved V4 Pro, open-sources its agent software, and raises API prices

Deepseek has moved its flagship V4-Pro out of the testing phase and released its agent software, Harness v0.1, under the MIT license. API prices are going up at the same time, with cache hits jumping to six times their current cost. For agent workflows that repeatedly read the same files, that's the biggest price increase in the transition. The article Deepseek ships improved V4 Pro, open-sources its agent software, and raises API prices appeared first on The Decoder .

ReadSource

The Decoder / 8:11 AM

OpenAI's new Agents API gives developers the infrastructure behind Codex and ChatGPT

OpenAI is releasing the Agents API as a public beta. It lets developers build cloud agents that run autonomously for hours, execute code, and hand off tasks to sub-agents. There are no extra fees beyond token usage. Cloudflare, Vercel, and Oracle offer additional sandbox environments. The article OpenAI's new Agents API gives developers the infrastructure behind Codex and ChatGPT appeared first on The Decoder .

ReadSource

VentureBeat AI / 2:30 PM

Orchestration is the new challenge for CX in the age of AI agents

Presented by Tata Communications Enterprises are deploying AI agents, voice AI, and automation across messaging, voice, and digital channels faster than the architecture meant to support it. Most of that deployment has involved attaching conversational AI to legacy systems never built for it, says Gaurav Anand, global head of the Customer Interaction Suite at Tata Communications. "In the rush to deploy AI, organizations have largely bolted conversational AI onto legacy systems," Anand says. "As a result, while many enterprises have adopted digital tools, very few have platforms that are truly integrated, scaled, and capable of seamless orchestration." That gap creates a heavy cognitive load for human agents who must piece together context across disjointed tools to understand what an AI system has already told a customer. The challenge is not simply access to data, but the absence of a shared enterprise context that connects customer identities, interactions, transactions, policies, journeys, and operational systems into a common understanding. Traditional CX architecture was built for linear, human-driven routing, not for managing real-time data flows between autonomous AI systems, data lakes, and human workers. "Today's operational complexity is no longer about adding more intelligence," he adds. "It is about coordinating the existing intelligence across the enterprise, so the enterprise customer never feels the friction of those internal silos. That requires a shared context layer that allows AI systems, applications, and people to operate from the same understanding of the customer and the business." Why orchestration is replacing automation as the top CX priority As that coordination problem grows, Anand says the strategic priority inside enterprises is shifting from automation to orchestration. "Automation solves individual tasks, whereas orchestration connects them into end-to-end outcomes," Anand says. "The next evolution is context-aware orchestration, where AI agents, applications, and human workers operate using a shared understanding of customers, processes, and business intent rather than isolated system records." As organizations accumulate more bots, agents, and AI tools, managing them grows exponentially more complex. Anand says the competitive advantage now sits less in deploying automation and more in how intelligently systems hand off work, collaborate, and escalate. The trap of bolting AI onto legacy systems Companies that simply place a voice AI agent in front of an existing system are repeating the same old mistake. Instead of improving the experience, they end up recreating the deterministic phone menus AI was supposed to replace. The real benefit of AI is the scale, speed, and orchestration it provides. Anand points to a wave of consolidation across the industry, as established contact center providers acquire AI-native firms to close capability gaps and strengthen their customer experience offerings. The broader industry shift reflects a growing recognition that enterprises need more than channels and automation; they need an intelligence layer capable of orchestrating AI, people, data, and workflows across the business. The goal across industries is to make AI the connective layer between customers, employees, and enterprise systems. To achieve that, organizations increasingly need a common enterprise ontology: a shared business vocabulary that aligns customer data, products, policies, SOPs, transactions, and workflows across otherwise disconnected platforms. Tata Communications’ solution is the Interaction Fabric, an orchestration layer that unifies contact center, messaging, collaboration, AI, and customer data while coordinating AI agents, channels, and enterprise systems in real time. Underpinning that orchestration is a context-driven architecture that continuously connects identities, conversations, transactions, and operational data so interactions retain continuity across channels and touchpoints. That means AI and agents can move across voice, WhatsApp, chat, email, and CRM workflows without losing customer context. Identity, intent, and AI-driven insight flow continuously across channels instead of remaining trapped in disconnected applications. The next phase of orchestration is not simply coordinating tasks across systems, but coordinating them through a shared understanding of the enterprise. Context graphs, built on enterprise ontologies, create that common understanding by connecting customers, interactions, products, policies, decisions, and outcomes across organizational silos. This allows AI agents and human workers to operate from the same source of context, driving more accurate decisions, seamless handoffs, and consistent customer experiences. But synchronizing customer intent, conversation history, enterprise data, and AI decision-making across channels only works without lag. Legacy networks not designed for modern data frequency create what Anand calls data gravity, producing latency and inconsistent journeys as users switch channels. "The underlying network needs to be engineered to be as agile as the AI systems running on top of it," he explains. "Interactions stay synchronous and technology itself becomes invisible, leaving only an experience that feels effortless." Making AI a better partner for human agents Effective shared visibility between human agents and AI systems starts with the agent experience rather than any single technology. The most effective implementations allow both the AI and human agent to operate from the same contextual understanding of the customer, ensuring that information gathered in one interaction can inform the next regardless of channel or system. Automated call summaries, real-time sentiment analysis, and AI-powered assistance provide agents with instant, actionable insights and suggested next steps directly within their workflow. That allows AI to handle routine, high-volume tasks such as password resets, delivery tracking, and account updates, while human agents focus on interactions requiring judgment and empathy. "If a customer is facing a sudden crisis like a fraudulent transaction, the AI can instantly block the card, but it cannot provide the emotional comfort and delicate communication needed in that moment of panic," Anand says. "The answer to the dilemma is intelligent orchestration, rather than a choice between systems." In practice, AI handles the immediate technical transaction, while real-time sentiment analysis recognizes the customer's distress and routes the call to a human expert. The objective is to orchestrate AI and human agents together so efficiency never comes at the cost of brand trust and loyalty. Building a unified CX architecture Moving from fragmented experimentation to coordinated orchestration requires both technical and organizational change, Anand says, beginning with consolidating data and fragmented point solutions onto a unified, cloud-first platform. "IT and CX teams need to work more collaboratively," he explains, describing that alignment as the second necessary shift, this time at the organizational level. At the architecture level, Anand says communication APIs need to be embedded into the enterprise's core so every function operates from the same customer context instead of maintaining its own siloed data. Increasingly, this means moving beyond integration alone toward a contextual architecture where a shared ontology and context graph provide a common understanding across CX, operations, sales, service, and AI systems. The deeper organizational change, he says, is a mindset shift from reactive support toward proactive, predictive, and personalized engagement, which he calls the three Ps. How AI agents will shape the future of CX Customer engagement over the next several years will be defined by real-time intelligence, increasing autonomy, and seamless orchestration across touchpoints, and persistent enterprise context that follows customers, employees, and AI agents wherever interactions occur. Rather than analyzing interactions after the fact, enterprises will increasingly shape conversations in real time. "The future of CX will be defined by simplification, aligning data, infrastructure, and operating models around clear customer outcomes rather than adding more models and tools," Anand says. "The rise of AI-powered agents and agent-to-agent interactions is a defining trend, with AI systems moving beyond assisting humans to independently managing and resolving interactions, creating a largely invisible layer of engagement that improves speed and efficiency." Human agents will increasingly work alongside AI, supported by real-time conversational intelligence and next-best-action recommendations to deliver what Anand calls Total Experience: a unified model that brings together customer, employee, and AI-driven experiences. Tata Communications is building toward that future through its Voice AI, AI Workers, and Total Experience Hub solutions. "Ultimately, customer engagement will evolve from being reactive to predictive and increasingly generative," Anand says. "Enterprises won't just be responding to needs, but actively shaping and improving customer journeys in real time." Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact [email protected] .

ReadSource

Latest story in this edition: 1:40 PM

Back to front page