Here's a neat thing I had ChatGPT Work with GPT-6 Astra (Max) do this morning: I live at <my address>. Figure out 5K and 10K running routes from me that loop from my house. Use OSM data. It worked for 27 minutes and produced exactly what I'd asked for, as both an embedded visualization and downloadable GPX file and GeoJSON files. Here's that 5K route: When I asked it how it had created the route, it replied: I used Nominatim to locate the address and Overpass to download local OpenStreetMap roads and trails , then calculated the loops locally. Frustratingly, the actual code it ran and exact details of what it did weren't visible to me in the ChatGPT UI. I see this lack of transparency is an anti-feature. By the time I thought to ask for a copy of the Python code it had used, ChatGPT was unable to provide it. This appears to be because the thread had been compacted. I think any LLM system that uses compaction needs to both preserve the pre-compacted text and make that text available via agent tool calls, to protect against this kind of problem. As for displaying the map to me, that used the visualize skill . It created a file called /workspace/el-granada-5k-share.html to embed directly into the ChatGPT UI. Here's a copy of that HTML , which starts like this: < div id =" eg-share-loop " > < div class =" viz-row " > < h3 > El Granada harbor loop </ h3 > < span class =" text-small " > 5.1 km </ span > </ div > < div id =" eg-share-stage " > </ div > < div class =" text-small text-muted " > Map data © < a href =" https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright " target =" _blank " rel =" noopener " > OpenStreetMap contributors </ a > </ div > < style > # eg-share-loop { width : 100 % ; } # eg-share-loop # eg-share-stage { width : 100 % ; margin : 8 px 0 ; } # eg-share-loop . eg-share-map { display : block; width : 100 % ; touch-action : none; } # eg-share-loop . eg-share-map text { fill : var ( --foreground ); font-size : 12 px ; font-weight : 400 ; } # eg-share-loop . eg-share-label { paint-order : stroke; stroke : var ( --background ); stroke-width : 3 px ; stroke-linejoin : round; } </ style > < script type =" application/json " id =" eg-share-data " > { "route" : { "type" : "LineString" , "coordinates" : [ [ - 122.467425 , 37.4997753 ] . . . </ script > < script src =" https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/[email protected]/dist/d3.min.js " > </ script > < script > (() => { const root=document.getElementById('eg-share-loop'); The <script type="application/json"> element contains the full geometry needed to render both the running route and the map itself, using D3, which is loaded from an allow-listed CDN location described in this section of the visualize skill : External resources The CSP allows only cdnjs.cloudflare.com , esm.sh , cdn.jsdelivr.net , unpkg.com , fonts.googleapis.com , fonts.gstatic.com , and fonts.bunny.net . Other origins are blocked and fail silently. Tags: geospatial , ai , d3 , openai , generative-ai , chatgpt , llms , skills , gpt-6-astra

Simon Willison LLMs11:56 PMHeat 78

ReadSource

Also In This Edition

The Information AI / 3:01 PM

Meta’s Muse Agent Almost Cost Me $408

• The Big Read: Investor Anjney Midha cut Anthropic an early check. His hot streak has kept going • Plus, Recommendations—our weekly pop culture picks: “ Our Town ,” “ Profits, Prophets, Coaches, and Kings ” and “ The Gentlemen ” A hotel room’s quality can be measured in terms of abundance: extra towels, spare bathrobes—plenty of Nespresso pods. Multiples of everything are almost always better. But what’s less pleasant is to inadvertently end up with multiple hotel rooms . A couple days ago, though, I found myself with the unfortunate opportunity to occupy a pair of accommodations at a Santa Monica, Calif., Marriott thanks to an error by my lil’ digital buddy: Muse, Meta Platforms’ new personal agent. The cumbersome, vexing tool hopes to seize on Silicon Valley’s zeitgeisty enthusiasm for popularizing autonomous AI. After a few days with it, I can’t imagine it’s the technology that will take agents mainstream. That hotel snafu came when I gave Muse the hotel’s name and asked it to book two nights. I plugged in my credit card details—a circuitous process that involved both Chase and Stripe—and was met with the digital equivalent of a shrug: An error message informed me that Muse hadn’t completed the transaction, and while it really didn’t know why it couldn’t, it assured me that my credit card hadn’t been charged. A little human skepticism led me to double-check its promise—good thing I did. In fact, the charge had gone through. What happened next still intrigues me. I gave Muse a screenshot showing the charge on my credit card and told it that the charge had gone through. Lickety-split, it returned with a Marriott confirmation number. Not bad—it finished the task without being instructed to do so. But somehow the AI managed to make two bookings: When I showed up to the hotel, I found two rooms waiting for me. The front-desk clerk showed some mercy and canceled one. Had a little human kindness not prevailed, I would’ve been out an extra $408, plus taxes and fees. I’d been pretty gung-ho to try Muse. We’ve spent the past year in increasingly complex discussions about agents ever since OpenClaw came out in January , marking what has felt like the beginning of a distinct new chapter in the AI era. Most of the agents that initially captured attention were meant to simplify work tasks. More recently, a couple of startups have captured buzz with ones devoted to improving life outside the office: The most talked-about one is from Instinct, a startup founded last year. (Instinct is so popular that it now faces a profound compute shortage, and it has recently been seeking additional fundraising that would value it at around $10 billion. Just a month ago, it was valued at $2.5 billion.) But Instinct isn’t widely available, so Muse felt like my first real chance to see what a personal agent could do. The recent reporting from my colleague Jyoti Mann made me even more curious to play around with it: Clearly, Meta sees Muse as a major new product , one aimed at the same everyday people who log on to Instagram and Facebook by the billions. Still, if their experiences are anything like mine, they’ll find Muse something of a misery. The hotel problem wasn’t the only hiccup I ran into with Muse. When I initially set up a account while on my work laptop using my phone number, I later couldn’t access it on my Mac mini at home or my iPhone: Login codes sent via text led me nowhere—just to more error messages. (Frankly, it’s a marvel I found the Muse app at all earlier this week, buried as it was below several other apps also named Muse in Apple’s App Store; it has since risen to the top.) Eventually, I caved and created a second account—this one linked to my Facebook account, which itself is tied to my phone number. Why couldn’t Muse pick up on the overlapping connections? I wish it could have. Later, I did get Muse to complete a Resy reservation and schedule an Uber. I can’t truthfully tell you it was faster or easier than if I’d just gone directly to those apps. After a while, I hit an existential conundrum. I’d given it the tasks that occurred to me, which numbered a small handful. What else could I get Muse to do? I’ve found interacting with the AI something like trying to wrangle a lackluster employee. If I wanted to maximize its potential, I’d need to think deeply and creatively about what else it could possibly do, coax it and baby it, then bite my nails and hope it actually carried out what I wanted. As I relate these frustrations, I can already hear someone shouting “Skill issue!” at me. But really, I stand by the conviction that mass-market consumer technology shouldn’t require any technical savvy or a lot of effort. Certainly, the best versions of such products do not—even the early versions. If three cars had routinely shown up each time someone ordered their very first Uber ride back in the 2010s, I promise you we’d see more yellow taxis on the road today and fewer Ubers. I don’t see agentic AI as some passing fad, nor am I hoping for such an outcome. The technology’s promise—to automate away some of life’s tedium—is damn alluring. What I expect will happen is that agentic AI will get woven into many existing apps, just as chatbots already populate the internet. People will make regular use of agentic software without ever really knowing it; Anthropic’s Claude, OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini all already have some agentic capabilities. Obviously, Apple and Google will want to use the technology to make iPhone and Android phones smarter and more useful, and the agents will sync up with what those devices already know and store about us. That would reduce quite a few hurdles to agentic AI. But will new stand-alone apps like Muse take off? I have my doubts—not unless they get much, much simpler and more reliable. Or maybe I’ll just need to learn to see the silver lining in their mistakes. You know what? If I ever again find myself billed twice and double-booked by accident, I know just what to do: Throw a rager in one room, sleep until noon in the other. Maybe Muse can handle ordering the booze. A good party can never have too much. —Abram Brown ( [email protected] ) Weekend’s Latest Stories The Big Read Early Anthropic Investor Seeks VC Glory With Cash and Compute Anjney Midha, 34, wants to get chips in the hands of fledgling startups and academics while he bets on a moment in tech that he describes as the “revenge of the scientists.” Listening: “ Our Town ” The good folks of Gainesboro, Tenn. (population: around 900), know that plenty of outsiders look down their noses at their part of the world—figuring them to be a buncha “backwards, hateful racists,” as one longtime Gainesboro resident puts it. That impression of the place does certainly seem to be why Gainesboro found itself under siege a few years ago when a group of wealthy Christian nationalists started to buy up property in secret, hoping to transform the town into a hotbed for other Christian nationalists: They figured they’d encounter little pushback, especially considering how far their money could go in such an impoverished parish. (I could describe them as white supremacists, but the Christian nationalists do take great umbrage with that label.) “Our Town,” a fast-paced and confidently told podcast from Bloomberg and iHeartRadio, looks at how those Christian nationalists staged their attempted takeover of Gainesboro and how they accumulated their wealth and followers, the latter largely through podcasts. (Sigh—the internet.) It also documents the swift, spirited resistance Gainesboro mounted against them, which cheers the soul and asks us to revisit at least a few of the assumptions about America—and our fellow Americans—that may have become entrenched in our minds. —Abram Brown Reading: “ Profits, Prophets, Coaches, and Kings ” by Jared Diamond Many billions of dollars and quite a few Harvard Business School classes have gone toward trying to figure out what makes a great leader—and turning oafs into passable leaders. Now Jared Diamond, author of the Pulitzer-winning 1998 bestseller “Guns, Germs and Steel,” has set himself the task of defining the essential qualities behind leadership in his latest book, “Profits, Prophets, Coaches, and Kings.” He does so by examining famous figures in business, religion, sports and politics, marking what is surely not the only instance in which Elon Musk has been compared to Genghis Khan. In terms of capitalistic chieftains, Diamond finds that the most distinctive leaders are the ones who’ve had the benefit of both exquisite timing and ruthless execution: Jeff Bezos, for example, outmuscling his competitors in the internet’s Paleozoic Era. As far as politicians go, Diamond points out that the ones we truly remember most aren’t those that simply took a mandate from voters and carried it out, even though we so often say that’s exactly what we want our elected officials to do. Rather, they have championed their own bold ideas and convinced the plebs it was really all part of what they’d originally wanted. All of these conclusions are delivered with Diamond’s dry-humored wonkishness. I enjoyed one in particular: “Once one has decided that one is uniquely qualified to assume the burden of leadership,” Diamond writes, “one’s opinion of oneself is unlikely to change.” —A.B. Watching: “ The Gentlemen ” One of the great joys of “The Gentlemen,” the rollicking “Downton Abbey” meets “The Godfather” concoction from director Guy Ritchie, is to admire how nice Theo James looks as he struts around in magnificent tweed. James plays Eddie Horniman, the fictional Duke of Halstead, and as the Netflix series’ second season begins, it’s just as well that Eddie’s concentrating hard on restoring the family fortune to its fullest extent. The dry-cleaning bills must be enormous: His beautiful wool keeps getting splattered in blood. The first season of “The Gentlemen” found Eddie settling somewhat uncomfortably into his new role: paterfamilias of an old, down-on-its-luck aristocratic family that—much to his surprise—has tied its fortunes to an illicit marijuana operation. In this latest season, Eddie has found his footing and is thinking expansively, which puts him at odds with his business partners: a family of Cockney-accented gangsters—father Bobby (Ray Winstone), who operates from lightly monitored house arrest, and his two children, the very capable Susie (Kaya Scodelario) and strapping, bruised-knuckle Jack (Harry Goodwins). As Eddie’s ambitions get bigger, the stakes get higher and the mood grows darker. And since this is very much a Ritchie production, schemes and mayhem continue to fill the screen in manic fashion. One doltish accomplice gets fed to a tiger. Elsewhere, Eddie helms a chase through London after a motorcycle gang snatches away a $16 million Botticelli, which he needs to appease the Italian mafia. The comic relief comes from Hugh Bonneville’s mincing Lord Hawthorne, who needs bribing too—and lusts for the chance to pull down Jack’s plus fours. (To woo Jack, Lord Hawthorne wines and dines him; a plate of iced oysters is a treat of a “Spartacus” reference .) Whether Eddie can keep everyone in line and on board seems questionable based on Season 2’s flash-forward opening shot: his own bloodied body. Michael Corleone never had it so frantic. —A.B.

ReadSource

arXiv AI/ML / 5:58 PM

arXiv paper: GPU-CFR: 80x Faster Counterfactual Regret Minimization by Compiling the Game to Static Dataflow and CUDA Graph Replay

A new arXiv AI paper by Boning Li and Longbo Huang studies GPU-CFR: 80x Faster Counterfactual Regret Minimization by Compiling the Game to Static Dataflow and CUDA Graph Replay.

ReadSource

arXiv AI/ML / 5:57 PM

arXiv paper: Distance generalization in transformers: why bother with positional encoding?

A new arXiv AI paper by Daniel Henrik Nevermann and Claudius Gros studies Distance generalization in transformers: why bother with positional encoding?.

ReadSource

The Information AI / 4:10 PM

Why AI Companies Are Building Out Wall Street-Style Finance Teams

The financing boom for the AI build-out is getting bigger and more complicated by the day—and AI companies have been staffing up for the challenge. AI labs including OpenAI and Anthropic, as well as neoclouds such as Nscale, are among a growing number of AI companies building out their capital markets teams and hiring specialists in areas like structured finance. That in part reflects the sheer volume of deals these companies are doing, many of which don’t fit neatly into standard corporate debt. This in-house staff can help when it comes to negotiating with lenders and drilling down into construction, power and other key details. Of course, tech and data center companies have long had in-house teams to handle fundraising, deals and other corporate finance needs. And structured finance is nothing new to the infrastructure world. But the scale of the AI build-out, which bankers peg at around $7.5 trillion in spending over the next five years, has pulled relatively young labs and upstart cloud firms into financing arrangements that are new territory. That means finance professionals, from bankers to investors at private equity, private credit and infrastructure firms, have more options in the form of neoclouds and other AI infrastructure startups, some of which are offering significant pre–initial public offering equity. “It's a new avenue for these people,” said James Howl-Newton, founder of Futura Search Partners, a specialist search firm focused on areas including digital infrastructure finance. As a result, “sponsors are having to deal with additional routes to exits for top performers,” he said. AI companies and infrastructure providers are tapping financing frequently and across different instruments, requiring deeper in-house capabilities and expertise than young tech firms have typically needed. One executive overseeing finance hiring at a neocloud noted that leveraged and structured finance backgrounds bring expertise that can help in areas like working through project diligence and getting banks to sign off on deals. Some AI firms may also want to run their own project finance models so they can move quickly through negotiations and have something to compare to lenders’ models. AI companies aren’t always issuing the debt themselves—that can fall to data center developers or special purpose vehicles, with firms like Blackstone and Apollo providing or arranging chip and other financing. And some of the biggest AI deals are using backstops from investment-grade companies like Nvidia or major cloud providers. Even so, commitments from AI customers often underpin much of the borrowing. And the users of the infrastructure will want to understand what they’re signing up for and their risks if a project runs into trouble. “Hiring of people within that business, responsible for the financing of compute, could prove to be an existential decision,” said Dan McCarthy, founder and CEO of One Search, an executive search firm focused on infrastructure finance whose recent clients include OpenAI. “You want someone who knows where all the pitfalls are, where all the bodies are buried in multibillion-dollar loans.” OpenAI, for its part, in July named Sven Semmelmann as head of compute capital markets. He previously led structured finance at Generate Capital, an investment firm that finances and owns infrastructure projects, and he has also held project finance roles at major banks. OpenAI Chief Financial Officer Sarah Friar, when announcing the hire on LinkedIn, said Semmelmann would oversee financing and partnerships to grow the company’s compute resources. Anthropic, meanwhile, has made several finance hires recently to work on capital markets and compute deals, and also has open positions posted including a capital markets infrastructure financing role. AI infrastructure upstarts are staffing up as well. Nscale, which launched in 2024 and is gearing up for a potential IPO , has been hiring across levels for capital markets and treasury as well as legal roles, calling for experience in areas like structured finance and private credit. SB Energy and Crusoe, which are developing major new data centers for OpenAI and other customers, are hiring across levels for jobs focused on project financings and other structured deals, recent postings show, while AI infrastructure startup Fluidstack is hiring a structured finance lead and a more junior counterpart. The good news for AI companies is that private credit and infrastructure teams, as well as investment banking teams focused on structured or project finance, had been growing even prior to the AI boom, providing a pool of skills that could translate into new twists on structured finance, like big graphics processing unit–backed deals. But that kind of finance talent doesn’t come cheap, especially for more senior people who have a track record of working on large transactions. And the normal tech tactic of dangling stock to lure talent won’t necessarily do the trick in all cases, especially for the most seasoned dealmakers and investors. Financiers would have to weigh a cash-heavy Wall Street pay package, albeit one that can depend heavily on how good bonus season is, against betting a portion of their pay on stock in a private or newly public company. Managing directors in investment banking can make north of $1 million in cash a year, with the biggest rainmakers making considerably more. The part of pay they get in stock at big public banks may vest over a few years but is generally easy to sell after that. For people at big infrastructure or private credit firms, senior employees may also receive carried interest, meaning a share of the profits on the funds or investments they work on, which can become worth millions over time. For instance, an investor at a top infrastructure firm may have several million dollars’ worth of carried interest tied up at their current firm they’d have to leave on the table. An AI company could try to make them whole with stock, which could be tantalizing to some, though others might not want to make a bet on equity in a young company. That might make the most experienced investors—those who’ve seen big infrastructure projects through over many years and know all the tricks of the trade—hard to pry away. New From Our Reporters Exclusive Anthropic’s In-House Payments Tech Push Could Chip Away at Stripe By Stephanie Palazzolo Exclusive China Curbs Humanoid IPOs After Unitree’s Volatile Debut By Jing Yang and Qianer Liu

ReadSource

AWS Machine Learning Blog / 3:53 PM

How AvioBook builds turnaround insights from operational data with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore

AvioBook, a Thales Group Company, prototyped Connected Analytics on Amazon Bedrock AgentCore to turn AvioBook Connect's operational data into plain-language, evidence-based answers for airline managers and dispatchers, helping them find and act on the causes of flight turnaround delays.

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

Ars Technica AI / 6:43 PM

“This is the AI men actually use”: Meta ads pushed apps nudifying real teens

Meta dragged its feet removing ads that nudify young girls' Instagram pics.

ReadSource

Hacker News AI / 12:25 PM

Show HN: CUDA/graphics in QEMU-KVM VMs without passing the Nvidia card to them

HN 4 pts · 2 comments

ReadSource

Hacker News AI / 8:18 AM

Is the UK government the new training ground for AI execs?

HN 2 pts · 0 comments

ReadSource

Bloomberg AI / 9:30 AM

Lyte Closes $165 Million Round, Bringing AI Startup's Valuation to $1.6 Billion

Lyte, a fast-growing robotics and artificial intelligence startup from top members of Apple Inc.'s Face ID team, has secured about $165 million in a new funding round that more than triples the company’s valuation to $1.6 billion.

ReadSource

The Verge AI / 4:00 PM

Google Pics is like Canva, but with even more AI

Google has a new suite of creative design tools for Workspace users called Google Pics, which aims to make editing and generating "professional-grade" AI images less cumbersome for businesses. Built around Gemini and the Nano Banana generative AI model, Google Pics is designed to give more granular control over prompt-based image making and manipulation, allowing […]

ReadSource

AWS Machine Learning Blog / 3:47 PM

How ZS democratized secure ad-hoc analytics with Amazon SageMaker

Learn how ZS built a security-hardened Amazon SageMaker platform that balances developer agility with healthcare-grade governance, serving 1,000+ daily active users across 200+ SageMaker domains.

ReadSource

Bloomberg AI / 1:38 PM

G20 Faces Divide Over Debt, AI and Global Growth

G20 finance officials are gathering in North Carolina with sovereign debt, global imbalances and economic growth in focus, but CSIS Director of Economics Program Philip Luck joins Bloomberg This Weekend and says the US and its partners increasingly disagree over both the problems and how to address them. A separate technology meeting will bring Elon Musk, Nvidia’s Jensen Huang and OpenAI’s Sam Altman into discussions over AI and emerging technologies as Washington pushes for a lighter regulatory framework. (Source: Bloomberg)

ReadSource

The Verge AI / 7:30 PM

Google’s AI note-taking app now allows you to interact with books

Google's AI note-taking app, Gemini Notebook, can now pull information from the books you've purchased. The new "Expert Intelligence" feature allows you to bring titles from Google Play Books directly into Gemini Notebook, which means you can ask questions about the material, as well as generate plans, infographics, AI podcasts, and more based on their […]

ReadSource

Latent Space / 1:31 AM

[AINews] Hot Chips: OpenAI’s Jalapeño, Cerebras CS-5, Groq 3 LPX, Apple M6

The conference with hot chips and even hotter companies

ReadSource

LangChain Blog / 7:38 PM

Introducing Rubrics: Build Agents that Evaluate and Correct Their Work

Deep Agents' RubricMiddleware adds a self-evaluation loop to your agent runs. Set a rubric, configure a grader, and get reliable outputs on tasks where correctness matters.

ReadSource

The Information AI / 3:07 PM

How to Use Google Gemini to Brainstorm Content and Thought Leadership

In almost any organization, there are practically infinite content ideas hiding in memos, emails, presentation decks, and meeting notes. But too often, this material mostly sits idle. Ideas that sparked excitement in the moment get ignored in favor of the countless little emergencies of office life, and eventually they are forgotten entirely. Even with many companies actively encouraging their executives to post organic thought leadership on professional networking sites, social media, and company channels, there are countless missed opportunities to turn off-the-cuff insights into valuable content. Google Gemini can help you transform your meeting notes into content plans, on-brand slogan ideas, and even booth mock-ups for your events team. Step 1: Brainstorm Blog Ideas Imagine you’ve just stepped out of a meeting with your social media team leads. You have a document full of notes (or maybe even a transcript) about what resonates with your audience, trending topics in your industry, target audience data, and keywords that are effective at driving engagement with your brand. Instead of letting this wealth of information stay locked inside your notes, open up a new Gemini chat and brainstorm how to turn your team’s sprawling strategy session into a series of relevant, focused blog posts. Here’s a prompt you can try: Generate a list of four relevant and engaging thought leadership blog post ideas for [company] based on trending topics, target audience analysis, and brand keywords. Gemini will return ideas for blog posts with catchy, clickable titles, along with information about target audience, keywords, angle, and tone. For example, if your meeting notes talk about how your customers are worried about their employees using unauthorized IT tools, Gemini might suggest a blog post titled “The Anatomy of a Zombie Subscription: How to Audit and Kill Shadow IT Instantly.” Step 2: Develop the Material The initial output will just be kernels of potential blog posts, but you can go back and forth with Gemini to develop them into real content. Take the “Zombie Subscription” blog, for example. You might ask Gemini to give you options for a “four tips” article structure, or to identify specific ideas from your meeting notes that merit extra attention. Use your own judgment—and your own language—during this process, rather than having Gemini write your entire blog post for you. Gemini can help with brainstorming, outlining, drafting, and revision, but your audience is ultimately reading the content to hear your own expert insights. Step 3: Distill the Main Message Maybe during your meeting, your team also discussed launching a new brand campaign. You know that your customers value your reliable and unique services, and your company has a long history of delivering for its customers. But sometimes, it can feel impossible to condense these big ideas into a few words that really communicate why customers come back to your company over and over. If you need help getting started with ideas for a new campaign tagline, open a new chat in Gemini and prompt something like: Generate three options for a new slogan emphasizing reliability, innovation, and a long history of popularity for [company]. For a B2B fintech company, Gemini might offer options like “Innovating Beyond the Bank. Trusted with Billions.” Or: “Built for Tomorrow. Proven by $10 Billion Today.” You may not hit the mark exactly on your first prompt. Maybe you want more (or less) alliteration, for example. Maybe you want it to be five words or fewer, unbroken by punctuation. You can keep asking Gemini for new variations until the new tagline is just right. Step 4: Mock Up Visuals for Events Often, one successful creative project sparks ideas for another. After you create your blog campaign and craft your new slogan, you might turn your attention to upcoming events. Try mocking up booth graphics ideas for your events team. Here’s a sample prompt: Create an image of a trade show booth using orange and blue colors. The booth should be modern and showcase interactive computer stations. Gemini will generate an image that you can sketch on in-app, giving you a quick, no-risk way to play with your potential trade show setup. And between the blog posts, the tagline, and the event visuals, you will have turned a couple of pages of messy meeting notes into the bones of an entire marketing campaign.

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

Hacker News AI / 3:00 AM

Show HN: Growtics – an AI growth agent that tells you what to do next

HN 1 pts · 0 comments

ReadSource

Simon Willison LLMs / 11:59 PM

Understanding ChatGPT Work

OpenAI announced ChatGPT Work on July 9th, and have been furiously iterating on it ever since. It is an extraordinarily confusing and very powerful product. Here's what I've figured out about it so far. ChatGPT Work is actually two products The more interesting version of ChatGPT Work is the one that runs in the cloud. This can be accessed via chatgpt.com or through the ChatGPT mobile apps. Let's call it Work Cloud . If you install the ChatGPT desktop app - the app that used to be called Codex - you gain access to a thing called ChatGPT Work that can access files and run programs directly on your computer. Let's call that one Work Local . This one feels more like regular Codex re-skinned to be less intimidating to non-software-developers. ( Update : Work Cloud is also available from the ChatGPT desktop app, via a Where should this chat run? dropdown.) For the rest of this article I'm going to talk exclusively about Work Cloud. Work is for paid subscribers only Right now, ChatGPT Work (in both flavors) is available only to $20/month and up subscribers. Free users and $8/month Go users do not have access. Work has features that aren't available in Chat The interface for accessing Work is a tab selector, which presents it as an alternative to Chat: The obvious question is when should I use Chat, and when should I use Work? OpenAI's official answer to that question is: Use Chat when you want an answer, explanation, brainstorm, or short draft. Use ChatGPT Work when you want ChatGPT to complete a task with a clear outcome, such as a brief, deck, analysis, recurring update, workflow, or file you can review and use. I find that almost entirely useless, because I've been using regular ChatGPT Chat for all of those task categories for years! The better question then is what features does Work have that are missing from Chat? After extensive experimentation I think I've mostly figured that out: Options to use Luna and Terra in place of Sol A code execution environment with Internet access A headless Chrome browser A persistent filesystem shared between sessions The ability to publish ChatGPT Sites The ability to run sub-agent sessions with Sol, Luna, and Terra Scheduled prompt automations (may be in ChatGPT Chat too) Model selection In Work, you get the option to pick GPT-5.6 Sol, Luna, or Terra, each with Light, Medium, High, Extra High, Max, or Ultra reasoning levels. You can also pick GPT-5.5 at Light, Medium, High, or Extra High. These look to be the same models that are available through the OpenAI API. Chat offers a different selection: 5.6 Instant, Medium, High, Extra High, and Pro (actually Extra High and Pro are only available for $100/month+ subscribers - $20/month subscribers cap out at High). It doesn't explain if those are Luna or Terra or Sol (I'm assuming Sol?). 5.6 Pro appears to be exclusive to Chat, with no equivalent in Work. My current understanding from using Codex is that Ultra is a special mode that more eagerly delegates to sub-agents. I believe ChatGPT Work sessions are billed against your Codex allowance, while ChatGPT Chat Sessions get their own, separate allowance. This may help explain the model availability differences. Code execution with Internet access! As a long-time fan of the Code Interpreter pattern - pioneered by OpenAI in 2023 - this is by far the most exciting feature of ChatGPT Work (Cloud) for me. The code execution environment can now talk to the rest of the internet! ChatGPT Chat can't do this - if you ask it to install additional software packages or interact with websites or APIs that access will be blocked by the container proxy. (Weirdly, back in January it grew the ability to install packages , but that doesn't seem to work any more. I wish they had better changelogs!) Claude's equivalent container has allowed restricted internet access since it launched last September . Claude can install packages from PYPI and NPM and clone repositories from GitHub. But that is about it: the allowlist of domains is very short. ChatGPT Work allows a whole lot more than that. It can be configured with a specific list of allowed domains, but the default appears to be open to all. This makes Work an incredibly useful tool. You can have it clone GitHub repositories, install their dependencies, then use them to interact with the rest of the web! A full, headless Chrome browser Another killer feature of ChatGPT Work is the browser tool . ChatGPT Work can launch a full Chrome instance, load websites, fill out forms, and take screenshots. If a site requires sign in the browser can prompt you to take over and enter both passwords and 2FA codes, without round-tripping those credentials through the model itself. It can even run JavaScript against the DOM of loaded pages. I prompted: Load simonwillison.net in your browser and extract the headings using JavaScript ChatGPT Work fired up a browser instance and ran the code: await tab . playwright . evaluate ( ( ) => { return Array . from ( document . querySelectorAll ( "h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6" ) , heading => ( { level : heading . tagName . toLowerCase ( ) , text : heading . innerText . trim ( ) . replace ( / \s + / g , " " ) , id : heading . id || null } ) ) ; } ) ; This feels a lot like my shot-scraper javascript tool, only now I can access it on my phone! A persistent, shared filesystem ChatGPT Chat gets a fresh filesystem for each chat session. These cannot be accessed from any other session. In ChatGPT Work each session gets its own scratch folder - named something like /workspace/scratch/e00a0a017944 - but each of those are persisted across sessions, so you can access files from previous chats. I have 171 folders in /workspace/scratch right now! As far as I can tell that /workspace volume is mounted to all Work sessions that are currently running - file edits from one can be instantly seen by the others. They don't seem to share the same process space though, and localhost servers running in one can't be accessed from another. ChatGPT Sites ChatGPT Work has the ability to build and deploy entire websites, using Cloudflare Workers. These can have HTML and JavaScript and can run server-side features too, including stateful features on top of Cloudflare D1 and R2. Here's a simple site I built with this feature: london-pelicans-in-her-piety.simonw.chatgpt.site My prompt was: Figure out all of the places in London with a pelican in her piety, then turn that into a JSON file and build a ChatGPT sites site about them (A pelican in her piety is a fascinating piece of medieval Christian imagery - once you know about them you'll find them all over the place.) These sites default to being private to the user that created them, but you can make them public and (on team plans) share them with other specific individuals. Sub-agents with Sol, Luna, and Terra There's not much to say about this one. ChatGPT Chat can't run sub-agents. ChatGPT Work can. This is very much a power-user feature: if you are running a complex project that can benefit from multiple parallel agents working together, Work can do that. Scheduled prompt automations Another feature that seems to have migrated from regular ChatGPT to ChatGPT Work at some point. You can prompt ChatGPT Work like this: run a search to see if Waymo have announced a launch date for Half Moon Bay every day at 8am This will schedule a prompt to run on that frequency. These prompts can decide that nothing interesting has happened, or they can decide to notify you of some new information. Update : Actually this seems to work in ChatGPT Chat as well. It's still worth noting here though, as it can be used in conjunction with other ChatGPT Work exclusive features. You can set a scheduled task to update a ChatGPT Site on an hourly basis, for example. Is this safe? An open question for me right now is how safe all of this stuff is. My lethal trifecta model warns about the risks inherent in any agent system that combines access to private data with exposure to untrusted content and a way to communicate stolen information back to an attacker. ChatGPT Work combines all three! I'd love to hear more from OpenAI about how they protect ChatGPT Work sessions against prompt injection attacks. I expect their answer is the same auto-review mechanism as Codex. OpenAI could make this a lot less confusing Figuring this all out took way more work than it should have. I think there are two key problems here: OpenAI explain Work in terms of what it's for, not what it actually does OpenAI still insist on hiding their system prompts and tools descriptions If the ChatGPT Work documentation included the exact system prompt and tool descriptions used by the agent I wouldn't have needed to write this post. A list of all the tools Shortly after publishing this article I had an idea. I started a fresh Work session and prompted: Build a site that lists every one of your tools - nearly grouped into categories - and for each one explain what it does. Try to exactly duplicate arguments and tool descriptions where possible. Design aesthetic should be technical docs, minimal flare Here's the site it built , which includes details of 223 registered tools - though 6 of those are from my own personal MCPs served via datasette-mcp . And a whole lot of Skills I noticed that the only browser-related tool in the list was web.run , which has methods for running searches, opening URLs, and clicking links, but didn't look like the full story in regards to headless browser automation. This made me suspicious that something was missing, so I told the ChatGPT Work session that built that tools reference site: Add full copies of every skill to the website (separate pages linked to from the homepage) It turns out ChatGPT Work uses a lot of skills - 44 in fact! The control-browser skill explains how the browser works: Run browser setup code through the Node REPL js tool. In this environment the callable tool id typically appears as mcp__node_repl__js . [...] The ability to interact directly with the browser is exposed through the browser-client runtime via the agent.browsers.* API. Before trying to interact with it, you MUST emit and read the complete documentation returned by await browser.documentation() in one go. So I told Work: Add the full output of await browser.documentation() to the bottom of the /skills/control-browser page And now you can read that on /skills/control-browser as well. A few more interesting Skills: documents for creating .docx files imagegen with tips on creating images with the image_gen tool pdf for both reading and rendering PDFs Spreadsheets for manipulating .xlsx , .xls , .csv , .tsv sites:sites-building for creating ChatGPT Sites openai-docs for answering questions about itself data-analytics:build-dashboard for building data dashboards Tags: ai , openai , generative-ai , chatgpt , llms , code-interpreter , lethal-trifecta , skills , general-agents

ReadSource

Hacker News AI / 10:15 PM

Using LLMs to Make the Emacs Web Browser Great Again

HN 1 pts · 0 comments

ReadSource

The Verge AI / 1:44 PM

Hugging Face’s new robot is an adorable rollerskating duck

Hugging Face's Pollen Robotics has launched its second cute AI robot, the Microduck, a one-eyed biped standing just under 10 inches tall. It's available to preorder now for $399 in cream, graphite, lavender, and sky blue, and Pollen Robotics says it plans to start shipping the little robot "before Christmas 2026." Video demos of the […]

ReadSource

Bloomberg AI / 9:07 PM

Amazon to Buy 2 Million Nvidia Chips for Data Center Build-Out

Amazon.com Inc. will add an additional 2 million Nvidia Corp. graphics processing units to its data center fleet in the next two years, a sign that the company remains committed to the AI hardware leader’s products despite its own competitive chipmaking efforts.

ReadSource

Hacker News AI / 5:00 PM

Show HN: Rudder – Red-Green TDD Workflow for Verifiably Comprehensive Specs

HN 1 pts · 0 comments

ReadSource

Bloomberg AI / 6:41 PM

Apple Upgrades Macs for the AI Era

Apple is upgrading its Mac mini and Mac Studio as demand grows for desktop computers capable of running AI applications locally. Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman breaks it all down and explains why memory and silicon shortages are contributing to higher prices. He also discusses Oura’s plans to raise as much as $3 billion in an IPO that could value the smart-ring maker at more than $16 billion. He joins Ed Ludlow on "Bloomberg Tech." (Source: Bloomberg)

ReadSource

arXiv AI/ML / 5:52 PM

arXiv paper: 3D Point Splatting for mmWave Radar Novel View Synthesis

A new arXiv AI paper by Adnan Armouti, Yixuan Gao, and Rajalakshmi Nandakumar studies 3D Point Splatting for mmWave Radar Novel View Synthesis.

ReadSource

arXiv AI/ML / 5:42 PM

arXiv paper: AdamX: Cosine similarity meets gradient descent

A new arXiv AI paper by Francisco Caldas, Ruben Belo, and Cláudia Soares studies AdamX: Cosine similarity meets gradient descent.

ReadSource

arXiv AI/ML / 5:41 PM

arXiv paper: Epistemic orientation predicts legislative effectiveness among members of the US Congress

A new arXiv AI paper by Segun Aroyehun, Stephan Lewandowsky, and David Garcia studies Epistemic orientation predicts legislative effectiveness among members of the US Congress.

ReadSource

arXiv AI/ML / 5:59 PM

arXiv paper: Programmable World Model

A new arXiv AI paper by Zheng-Hui Huang, Guixu Lin, and Jiacheng Lin, and 8 more studies Programmable World Model.

ReadSource

Latest story in this edition: 11:56 PM

Back to front page