• 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.

The Information AI3:01 PMHeat 71

ReadSource

Bloomberg AI / 12:00 PM

Anthropic Investor Leads Funding for Off-Grid AI Power Startup

A startup that builds off-grid power systems for data centers said it raised $120 million in a Series A funding round led by Spark Capital, an investor in artificial-intelligence developer Anthropic PBC.

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

AWS Machine Learning Blog / 9:23 PM

Build a no-code ML workflow with Snowflake, Amazon SageMaker Canvas and Amazon Quick – Part 2: Data preparation and model building with Amazon SageMaker Canvas

In Part 2 of this no-code ML series, you connect Amazon SageMaker Canvas to Snowflake, prepare and join transaction data with Data Wrangler visual transformations, and train an XGBoost fraud detection model. All without writing machine learning code, laying the groundwork for interactive dashboards in Part 3.

ReadSource

VentureBeat AI / 2:18 PM

VentureBeat names Rob Strechay as its first Lead Analyst, expanding its enterprise AI research push

Rob Strechay, until recently managing director and principal analyst at theCUBE Research, has joined VentureBeat as our first Lead Analyst and a founding analyst of VentureBeat Research. His arrival is the next step in a deliberate move at VentureBeat toward deeper specialization: analysis built for the technical decision-makers — the directors, VPs, CIOs, and CTOs — who are evaluating, buying, and deploying enterprise AI. The enterprise AI stack is being rewritten in real time, and the decision-makers I talk with are starved for objective, defendable data. Rob Strechay has the mix of technical rigor and operating experience needed to dissect the architecture behind the next phase of enterprise AI deployment. The questions enterprise technology leaders are asking have changed. As organizations move past experimentation with generative AI toward production deployment, they want to know how to orchestrate multi-vendor environments, where the security gaps in their agentic pipelines sit, and how to fix the utilization problems draining their infrastructure budgets. Answering those questions requires more depth than news coverage alone provides, and that is the gap this research offering is built to fill. An analyst who has sat on every side of the table Strechay brings nearly three decades of experience as a practitioner, product executive, and industry analyst. Before becoming an analyst, he was an executive at numerous startups, including Zerto; he joined Amazon Web Services to help build a new analytics service; and he held executive roles across enterprise infrastructure. He later served as a senior analyst at Enterprise Strategy Group and most recently as managing director and principal analyst at theCUBE Research and SiliconANGLE, where he hosted executive interviews and analyzed the evolution of cloud, data, and AI infrastructure. Strechay will initially focus his coverage on cloud infrastructure, advanced data infrastructure, platform engineering and DevOps orchestration and observability, and the intersection points where AI and enterprise security collide. Already at work: GPU utilization and the VB Pulse surveys Strechay has already been contributing to VentureBeat's research . In May he published an analysis of enterprise GPU utilization , examining the compute waste sitting inside enterprise AI infrastructure, and he provided a substantive review of our AI Infrastructure & Compute survey before it went into the field. His infrastructure-level focus complements the research engine VentureBeat has built around its monthly VB Pulse surveys, which track five areas of enterprise AI adoption: agentic orchestration, agent reliability and evals, agentic security and identity, AI infrastructure and compute, and context layers, including retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Our June report on agentic orchestration , drawn from a survey of 145 enterprises, found that two-thirds of those enterprises had hedged their AI model strategy rather than committing to a single provider — a posture whose value the June outage of Anthropic's Claude models made plain. VB In Conversation: The first vehicle A core vehicle for this expanded research footprint will be a deepening of VentureBeat's existing VB In Conversation video interview series, which Strechay will host. Rather than high-level industry overviews, the series will bring architectural blueprints, actual deployment barriers, and back-end infrastructure realities to light through in-depth technical interviews with the architects and product leaders behind leading enterprise AI systems — an unvarnished look at which tools perform under production-grade pressure. "VentureBeat has built an audience of enterprise builders and technology buyers that any analyst would want to serve," Strechay said. "My goal is to use deep empirical metrics and VentureBeat's proprietary tracking data to help enterprise buyers and the people building for them make sound platform and infrastructure decisions during the most disruptive transition enterprise technology has seen." The expanded VB In Conversation series will appear on VentureBeat and on VentureBeat's YouTube channel , alongside Rob's written analysis on the site. Enterprise practitioners who want to take part in our monthly VB Pulse surveys, or arrange an analyst briefing with Rob, can reach the research team here .

ReadSource

Simon Willison LLMs / 7:18 PM

Moonlight & Mayhem (Raccoon Heist by Codex + GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra)

Moonlight & Mayhem (Raccoon Heist by Codex + GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra) On Wednesday I wrote about One-shotting a Raccoon Heist game using Claude Fable 5 , where I had Claude Fable 5 build a full working game from a premise I generated with GPT-3 and DALL-E four years ago . I decided to pose the exact same prompt to Codex Desktop running GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra - the mode where Sol makes aggressive use of sub-agents - to see how it would do. It produced a much better game! Here's Moonlight & Mayhem - GitHub repository here , including the textures and prompts it generated using gpt-image-2 . Your browser does not support HTML5 video. The original GPT-3 generated game description included: In “Raccoon Heist”, you and your team of thieving raccoons are tasked with pulling off a series of daring heists. From robbing banks to stealing priceless art, no job is too big or too small for your furry crew. Fable's version had you as a single raccoon running around a back yard collecting coins and fish. GPT-5.6 Sol has you in a museum, rescuing your two other raccoon crewmates in order to stack on top of each other and bust the golden sardine out of its case. Much more heisty! There was one catch though: the version produced from the one-shot prompt had a bug where each raccoon had an eyeball that was enlarged to the size of a giant sphere floating over their head! You can play that version here . Despite reviewing screenshots during development Codex failed to spot and correct this bug. I fixed it by prompting: Why do the raccoons have huge black spheres on them? And then: Fix it Which resulted in this fix . I shared the full Codex transcript in the repository - I wish Claude Code had the same "copy as Markdown" feature. Codex spent 52 minutes on the project. Here's the AgentsView cost estimate for that session if I had been paying full API prices as opposed to using my monthly Codex subscription: Tags: game-design , ai , openai , generative-ai , llms , coding-agents , codex , gpt

ReadSource

BAIR Blog / 9:00 AM

From CUDA to MLX: How K-Search Brings Decades of Kernel Expertise to Apple Silicon

Figure 1: CUDA-to-MLX optimization translation map. CUDA optimization knowledge can be translated into architecture-native MLX strategies rather than copied instruction-for-instruction. We face a new epoch in computing. Hardware is changing rapidly — not just faster GPUs, but a growing range of chips from different vendors, each with its own architecture and often tailored to specific AI workloads. Software is changing just as fast, and AI coding tools now generate in minutes what took months of effort a few years ago. With so much of computing now centered on AI, GPU kernels are a crucial component of its success. These are the low-level programs that run inside the GPU, and writing efficient ones is far from obvious — it takes years of expertise to get right. Transferring a kernel from one vendor’s hardware to another is harder still, and often means rediscovering the same optimizations from scratch. The CUDA ecosystem, for example, has accumulated decades of hard-won kernel expertise: hand-tuned implementations of attention, state space models, and other critical operations representing thousands of engineering hours. Newer hardware ecosystems (Apple Silicon, custom AI accelerators, and others) are growing fast but lack this depth. In this work we ask whether that expertise can be transferred automatically. We built on K-Search , an evolutionary kernel search framework introduced by Cao et al. at Berkeley Sky Lab that uses AI to optimize GPU kernels, and extended it with a backend for MLX — Apple’s machine-learning framework for its own Apple Silicon chips. We developed a novel structured CUDA-to-MLX translation layer that lets K-Search take existing CUDA kernels as a knowledge base and adapt them into high-quality GPU kernels for Apple Silicon, rather than rebuilding from scratch. We show that our approach reaches near-expert level performance on Apple Silicon with 0.97x speedup compared to the native MLX Attention kernel, and up to a 20x prefill speedup over the community mlx-lm implementation on the Mamba SSM kernel; we report the numbers, and how much of the gain comes from the translation layer, in the sections below. Although we focus on MLX kernels for Apple Silicon, the method is not specific to MLX and applies to any ecosystem where CUDA expertise is transferable. Why MLX? Apple’s MLX framework has seen remarkable adoption since late 2023. With Apple Silicon in hundreds of millions of MacBooks and Mac Studios, MLX enables local AI inference without cloud costs. The unified memory architecture makes it especially attractive for mid-sized models (7B–70B parameters on M series chips). Yet beneath this momentum lies a significant gap: many performance-critical kernels that the NVIDIA ecosystem takes for granted: paged attention, optimized SSM scan kernels, fused MoE routing are either absent or naive without hardware-specific tuning. MLX runs models correctly but often leaves significant performance on the table. This gap is what motivates the rest of this post. What is K-Search? K-Search is an evolutionary kernel optimization framework originally developed by our first author Shiyi Cao at UC Berkeley Sky Lab. Given a naive kernel and a hardware specification, it runs an iterative optimization loop: an LLM reasons about which optimizations to try next, a code-writing model generates candidate kernels, and those candidates are compiled and benchmarked on real hardware. Measurements feed back into the search, which keeps refining, pursuing promising directions and dropping dead ends until performance converges. Algorithm 1: K-Search via co-evolving world models. The search alternates between selecting the most promising action, instantiating and evaluating code until improvement stagnates, and evolving the world model through insert, update, and prune operations. Adapted from Cao et al. (2026) . Search is grounded by a Spec: a domain-specific document encoding hardware rules, optimization patterns, and mathematical constraints which keeps generated code from hallucinating invalid primitives and ensures candidates will actually compile and run efficiently. In our runs, a single model (Gemini 3.5 Pro Preview) plays both roles: it maintains the reasoning state and writes the kernels. The reasoning half is prompted as a “GPU kernel performance engineer” and asked to work through a fixed analysis before proposing anything: classify the kernel (reduction, scan, attention/softmax, …), rewrite the reference computation in canonical form, map out data layout and access patterns, and hypothesize the likely bottleneck (bandwidth, latency, compute, or synchronization) in each runtime regime. Only then does it emit candidate optimizations, each as a single change implementable in one iteration. We call the persistent reasoning state a world model . Rather than a flat list of things to try, it is a decision (prefix) tree: each root→leaf path composes a full optimization plan, and sibling branches are competing alternatives. Every node is scored — an overall_rating in [0, 10], a confidence in [0, 1], and per-node impacts on memory bandwidth, register pressure, and compute/hardware fit — so the search can rank partial plans and expand the most promising ones. The tree persists and grows across rounds: refining an idea adds a child node rather than overwriting its parent, and if the best score fails to improve for a few rounds (a stagnation window) the search backs off to explore an alternative branch. A single node, as it appears mid-run on the attention kernel, looks like this: { "action" : "Replace the threadgroup-memory softmax reduction with a register-only reduction: each SIMD group owns 8 query rows and reduces across lanes with simd_shuffle_xor, removing a threadgroup_barrier." , "difficulty_1_to_5" : 4 , "impacts" : { "memory_bandwidth" : 8 , "register_pressure" : 4 , // risk: spill if Br > 8 "compute_hw_fit" : 9 // SIMD width 32 ; keep tile 8 x 8 }, "overall_rating_0_to_10" : 8 , "confidence_0_to_1" : 0.7 } Listing 1: Example K-Search world-model node. Each candidate optimization records a concrete action, estimated hardware impacts, an overall priority rating, and the model's confidence. Figure 2: Overview of K-Search. The framework operates on a Search State $S_t$ structured as a search tree. The tree consists of Closed nodes (blue, visited states with attached program like $x_{12}$) and a Frontier of Open nodes (orange, pending hypotheses like $u_{13}$). The workflow iterates through three phases: (1) Action Selection , where the most promising action node is retrieved from the frontier based on world model estimated priority score $V$; (2) Local Refinement , where a stochastic policy $\pi_{\mathrm{code}}$ samples concrete implementations until stagnation; and (3) World Model Update , where the LLM reasons over the trajectory to update the search tree via Insert (adding new actions), Update (adjusting $V$, e.g., $u_{11}$ dropping from 0.9 to 0.6), and Prune (removing less promising nodes like $u_{10}$). The original K-Search paper evaluated this search strategy on CUDA kernels from FlashInfer. Across GQA decode, MLA decode, MLA prefill, and MoE, K-Search improved more consistently than OpenEvolve and ShinkaEvolve over the same 120-iteration budget. These results establish the search framework we build on here; the remainder of this post asks whether its optimization knowledge can transfer beyond CUDA. Figure 3: Main results from the original K-Search paper. Across three runs, K-Search achieves stronger best-so-far search scores, per-workload kernel performance, and speedup distributions than OpenEvolve and ShinkaEvolve on four FlashInfer CUDA kernels. Reproduced exactly from Cao et al. (2026) . Building an MLX backend To bring K-Search to Apple Silicon, we first built a native MLX backend. We implemented a full MLX-specific task adapter for K-Search, including: An MLX task backend in k_search/tasks/ handling kernel compilation and execution on Apple Silicon via MLX’s Metal/C++ APIs. Updated kernel generator prompts for writing and modifying Metal/MLX kernels. MLX-specific benchmarking integration using mlx.core measurement utilities. Translating CUDA expertise to MLX However, the more interesting challenge was not simply running K-Search on MLX. The key insight is that expert CUDA kernels encode decades of optimization knowledge that is transferable to Apple GPU if you can bridge the conceptual gap. Simply handing an LLM a CUDA kernel and asking it to port it is not enough: without deep hardware context, it produces code that is syntactically valid but architecturally wrong (wrong tile sizes, invalid primitives, mismatched memory assumptions). Our translation layer consists of: Concept mapping tables: A structured glossary of CUDA primitives and their MLX/Metal equivalents with hard constraints. For example: __shared__ maps to Metal threadgroup memory but with a hard 32 KB limit (vs. NVIDIA’s 48 KB) warp_reduce maps to MMA (preferred) __syncthreads() becomes threadgroup_barrier(mem_flags::mem_tg) H100’s ~3.35 TB/s HBM3 maps to M3 Max’s ~400 GB/s unified DRAM a bandwidth difference that reshapes which optimizations are worth pursuing. MLX-specific hints and patterns: Concrete code-level patterns for operations with no direct CUDA equivalent, such as register-based row reductions using simd_shuffle_xor in an 8×8 MMA tile layout, or the “exp2 trick” (replacing $exp(x)$ with $exp_2(x \log_2 e)$) for faster softmax on Apple’s fast $exp_2$ hardware instruction. Reusable assertions: Expert kernel behaviors reframed as properties the evolutionary search must preserve, rather than code to copy. Matching expert kernel performance: the Attention kernel We evaluate three configurations of an MLX attention kernel for Apple Silicon: (1) a naive baseline, (2) pure evolution with no additional provided context, and (3) a full context translation layer, which supplies the optimizer with architecture-specific implementation knowledge extracted from high-performance kernels (e.g., FlashAttention-2), letting the evolutionary search reason about implementation strategies rather than starting from a naive kernel. Together, these three configurations let us isolate the exact impact of the translation layer. Figure 4: Performance scaling of the Attention Kernel through stacked optimizations. The "Full Context" configuration successfully discovers and implements advanced strategies like double buffering and loop unrolling, achieving near-expert performance. The jump from 0.26× to 0.97× the speed of Apple’s state-of-the-art attention kernel — illustrates how much the translation layer matters. With full context, the evolved kernel independently discovers the key optimizations in FlashAttention 2: threadgroup memory tiling, online softmax, K-transposition for memory access, and the exp2 trick. The last of these replaces every softmax exponential with a base-2 exponential, \[e^x = 2^{x \log_2 e},\] which is exact and lets the kernel use Apple’s fast fast::exp2() hardware instruction directly instead of paying for a base conversion at runtime. A 20× faster prefill: the Mamba SSM kernel To evaluate whether K-Search generalizes beyond attention kernels, we applied it to the state-space model (SSM) kernel used by Mamba. Unlike attention, the computational bottleneck is a recurrent state update rather than a softmax, providing a substantially different optimization challenge. We compare the evolved implementation against the community MLX implementation (mlx-lm) and the PyTorch reference implementation (mamba.py) on an M1 Max. Evaluated on mamba-370m f16, M1 Max 64GB: Metric mlx-mamba (ours) mlx-lm (community) mamba.py Decode 152 tok/s 116 tok/s 40 tok/s Prefill L=512 5,751 tok/s 329 tok/s 1,089 tok/s Prefill L=1024 6,010 tok/s 327 tok/s 1,127 tok/s Prefill L=2048 6,612 tok/s 326 tok/s 1,092 tok/s Prefill L=4096 6,743 tok/s 339 tok/s 1,042 tok/s Table 1: Prefill and decode throughput on mamba-370m (f16, M1 Max 64GB). mlx-mamba (ours) reaches ~20× higher prefill throughput than the community mlx-lm baseline, while decode remains comparable. The ~20× prefill speedup over mlx-lm comes down to one difference: mlx-lm does not implement a parallel scan for the SSM. The state recurrence \[h_t = \bar{a}_t h_{t-1} + \bar{b}_t\] looks inherently sequential, but each step can be written as a pair $(\bar{a}_t, \bar{b}_t)$ under the associative combine \[(a_2, b_2) \circ (a_1, b_1) = \left(a_2 a_1,\ a_2 b_1 + b_2\right),\] which reproduces the recurrence exactly. Because the operator is associative, the whole sequence can be evaluated with a parallel (prefix) scan in $O(\log N)$ dependent steps instead of $O(N)$. mlx-lm skips this and processes tokens one at a time, leaving most of Apple Silicon’s compute idle; our evolved Metal kernel applies the scan and makes much fuller use of GPU throughput. The gain shows up in prefill, where the full sequence is available to scan in parallel, and not in single-token decode, where there is only one new token per step and no scan to parallelize — which is why the decode row is roughly flat while prefill is ~20×. mamba.py is slow on both prefill and decode because it is a PyTorch reference implementation that falls back to CPU or MPS on Apple Silicon, forgoing the hardware-specific optimizations that MLX’s Metal backend makes possible. What’s next? On the two kernels we studied, AI-driven evolutionary kernel search grounded in structured cross-platform translation knowledge reached near-expert performance on Apple Silicon without a team of GPU experts starting from scratch. We do not yet know how far this generalizes, but the result is encouraging. For us the main takeaway is that the bottleneck was not the LLM’s ability to write Metal code, but the quality of the context and constraints we gave it. Our CUDA translation layer converts existing NVIDIA kernel expertise into actionable guidance for Apple Silicon, and lets K-Search’s evolutionary search do the rest. We are actively extending this work in several directions: supporting new architectures, with current efforts focused on developing new kernels for the IBM Spyre AIU and broader hardware targets; adding more kernels such as paged attention and fused MoE routing; and improving integration with the K-Search evolution loop to make translation context even more automatic. Acknowledgements This work was carried out by IBM Research and builds on K-Search from the UC Berkeley Sky Lab ( Cao et al., 2026 ). We welcome collaboration and feedback from the MLX and broader AI systems communities. If you are working on kernel optimization for non-CUDA hardware, we would love to hear from you. Citation @article { cao2026k , title = {K-Search: LLM Kernel Generation via Co-Evolving Intrinsic World Model} , author = {Cao, Shiyi and Mao, Ziming and Gonzalez, Joseph E and Stoica, Ion} , journal = {arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.19128} , year = {2026} } Appendix: Try it yourself The MLX backend is built on top of the open-source K-Search repo, so the results here can be reproduced directly. The steps are: 1. Clone and install git clone https://github.com/caoshiyi/K-Search.git cd K-Search uv pip install openai wandb uv pip install git+https://github.com/caoshiyi/flashinfer-bench-ksearch.git 2. Set your credentials Open the relevant script under scripts/ and set three variables at the top: KSEARCH_ROOT = /path/to/K-Search API_KEY = your-llm-api-key 3. Run kernel search # Optimize Flash Attention on Apple Silicon (world-model mode) bash scripts/mac_flash_attention_wm.sh # Or a Mamba SSM kernel, e.g. the selective scan bash scripts/mamba_selective_scan_fwd_wm.sh Full CLI reference and documentation are in the README.

ReadSource

VentureBeat AI / 7:16 PM

The AI compute gap: Enterprises are buying infrastructure faster than they can measure what it costs

Across 107 enterprises, AI infrastructure spending is accelerating well ahead of the ability to see or steer its economics. Most organizations run their AI on a familiar base of hyperscalers and model-provider APIs, yet the next dollar is aimed at specialized compute almost none of them use today; a majority intend to switch or add providers within the year, many within a quarter. Buying decisions turn on integration and total cost of ownership rather than headline token price — which is fortunate, because most enterprises cannot yet see their unit economics clearly: GPUs sit at half utilization or less, and fewer than half rigorously track what their compute actually costs. The result is a compute gap — heavy, fast-moving investment running ahead of the visibility needed to control it. This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines enterprise AI infrastructure and compute: where organizations are in their deployment journey, what they run AI on today, how satisfied they are, what would make them switch, where they plan to evaluate their investments, and — most revealingly — how well they can measure and control the economics of the compute underneath it all. The central finding is a compute gap — the distance between how aggressively enterprises are investing in AI infrastructure and how little of its economics they can see. Only about one in five (21%) run AI in production at scale, yet spending intentions are outrunning that maturity: the single largest planned area enterprises plan to evaluate over the next year is AI-specialized clouds (45%), a layer almost none of these enterprises use today. Meanwhile the compute already in place runs cold — 83% report GPU utilization of 50% or less — and fewer than half (44%) can rigorously track what their AI compute costs. Enterprises are buying more infrastructure faster than they can account for what they already own. Enterprises are not settled on their infrastructure vendors, either: A clear majority (64%) plan to switch or add an infrastructure provider within twelve months, and 38% within the next quarter — unusually high churn intent for a category this foundational. When they choose, they choose on integration with the existing stack (41%) and total cost of ownership (35%), not on headline price: cost per million tokens is the deciding factor for just 8%. And the frontier constraint that will shape the next round of decisions — the shift from GPU compute to memory bandwidth as inference scales — is barely on the radar, with roughly one in five enterprises either unaware of it or yet to address it. Methodology VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this survey focused on enterprise AI infrastructure, compute, and inference economics. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=107; the survey’s smallest size band, 1–100 employees, is excluded), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%. By organization size the sample concentrates in the mid-market: 101–250 employees (36%) and 251–1,000 (27%) lead, with 1,001–5,000 (22%), 5,001–10,000 (8%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. By role it spans managers (38%), individual contributors (28%), VPs and directors (19%), and the C-suite (13%); on purchasing authority it is buyer-credible, with 45% final decision-makers and another 30% recommenders or influencers for AI solutions. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 26%, followed by Healthcare/Life Sciences (15%), Financial Services (13%), and Retail/E-commerce (12%). At 107 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It also skews toward the mid-market and toward earlier-stage adopters, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively building out AI infrastructure rather than from the largest hyperscale operators. Finding 1: Ambition outpaces production Only one in five run AI in production at scale We asked where organizations sit in their AI deployment journey. Most are still building toward production rather than operating at scale. The maturity curve is front-loaded. Three-quarters of enterprises (76%) are either experimenting or running only some workloads in production, and just 21% describe AI in production at scale. This matters for everything that follows: the infrastructure decisions in this report are being made largely by organizations still early in deployment, whose compute footprint — and whose costs — are about to grow. The evaluation and switching intentions in Findings 3 and 4 are the leading edge of that build-out, not the settled preferences of operators who have already found what works. Finding 2: Enterprises run on hyperscalers and model APIs The specialized GPU clouds barely register — today We asked which providers and platforms enterprises currently use to run their AI. The answer is a familiar one: the incumbents. The current stack is hyperscaler-and-API. Google Cloud leads at 48%, and the general-purpose clouds (Google, Microsoft, AWS, Oracle) together with the major model APIs (Gemini, OpenAI, Anthropic) account for essentially all current deployment. The specialized “neocloud” GPU providers that dominate AI-infrastructure headlines — CoreWeave, Lambda, Crusoe, Nebius and peers — register at or near zero among these enterprises today. Only 6% run their own on-prem GPU clusters and 4% a custom open-source stack. Enterprises are, for now, running AI on the providers they already buy from — which makes the evaluation intentions in Finding 3 all the more striking. (A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, this sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, and this question counted every provider a respondent uses — an average of 2.1 selections each — so the figures measure presence in the stack rather than spending or primary status. A sample built this way will show a different provider mix than a spend-weighted census of the broader market; Google's strength here, for example, is consistent with its long-standing position among smaller enterprises building on AI. Read these shares as a portrait of what this AI-active cohort runs today, and treat gaps between these figures and industry-wide market share estimates as a property of the sample rather than a contradiction of either.) Finding 3: The next dollar goes to infrastructure they don’t yet run AI-specialized clouds top the evaluations list We asked where enterprises planned to evaluate AI infrastructure over the next 12 months. Their answers point away from the stack they run today. Here is the report’s sharpest tension. The single most-cited planned evaluation area — AI-specialized clouds, at 45% — is the very category almost none of these enterprises use today (Finding 2). Nearly a third (32%) intend to evaluate non-Nvidia accelerators, and 28% in next-generation Nvidia silicon; even decentralized compute networks (16%) and sovereign compute (11%) draw meaningful interest. Read against current usage, this is not incremental — it is the leading edge of a re-platforming. The direction-of-travel question tells the same story: every infrastructure approach is net-expanding, but specialized AI clouds carry the highest net momentum (+24), edging out even the hyperscalers (+22). Enterprises are preparing to move a meaningful share of AI compute off the general-purpose cloud. This continues a trend we saw in our April-May survey wave. Back then, usage of the AI-specialized clouds was equally marginal — CoreWeave at 3%, Lambda at 4%, Crusoe at 2% of enterprises. When we asked enterprises what change they planned in their AI infrastructure strategy over the next twelve months, the most-cited answer was moving workloads to specialized AI clouds, at 33%. Asked in April-May which emerging compute option they were most likely to evaluate AI-specialized clouds again drew the most responses. Two waves, two differently worded questions, one consistent picture: the type of cloud enterprises are most eager to assess is the type they have barely begun to use. Finding 4: A switching wave is building Six in 10 plan to change providers within a year — many within a quarter We asked whether and when enterprises plan to switch or add an infrastructure provider. Very few intend to stand still. For a category as foundational as compute, this is a remarkable amount of intended movement. Only 36% have no plans to change, meaning a clear majority (64%) intend to switch or add a provider within twelve months — and 38% within the next quarter alone. Where that interest points is telling: the providers drawing the most switching consideration are again the incumbents — Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud (33% each), OpenAI (30%), and Gemini (22%) — which suggests much of the near-term movement is reshuffling among the majors and consolidating spend rather than defecting to new entrants. The neocloud interest in Finding 3 is a 12-month evaluation thesis; the switching in the next quarter is mostly incumbents trading share. ( Method note: Respondents who selected both "no plans to change" and a specific switching window are counted as switchers, on the logic that naming a timeframe is the more specific answer; three respondents were reclassified under this rule. ) Finding 5: Nobody buys on token price Integration and total cost of ownership decide — not sticker price We asked what matters most when enterprises select an AI infrastructure provider. Headline price finished last. Enterprises do not buy AI infrastructure on pricing, which is the place vendors compete on hardest. Integration with the existing stack (41%) and total cost of ownership (35%) dominate, while the headline metric — cost per million tokens — is the deciding factor for just 8%, dead last. The pattern is coherent: buyers are optimizing for how a provider fits and what it truly costs to operate, not for the advertised unit rate. It also foreshadows Finding 7 — enterprises say TCO matters most, yet most cannot yet measure it rigorously. The stated priority and the measured capability are out of step. Finding 6: Expensive GPUs, idle most of the time 83% report GPU utilization of 50% or less We asked what share of their GPU capacity enterprises actually utilize. The answer is a well-known but rarely quantified inefficiency. Disclosure: Band percentages count every selection against all 107 qualified respondents; 14 respondents selected more than one band, so bands overlap. At the respondent level, 83 of the 100 GPU-operating enterprises reported utilization at or below 50% The compute already in place runs cold. Adding the bands at or below half capacity, 83% of enterprises that operate GPUs report utilization of 50% or less, and nearly half (49%) run at 25% or below. Only 12% clear the 50% mark, and a further 8% do not measure utilization at all. Idle accelerators are expensive accelerators, and this is the clearest single measure of the compute gap: enterprises are planning to buy more GPUs and specialized compute (Finding 3) while the capacity they already own sits substantially unused. The efficiency headroom in the current fleet is large — and largely unmeasured. Finding 7: Spending fast, measuring slowly Fewer than half rigorously track what their compute costs We asked whether enterprises can quantify the cost and return of their AI infrastructure spend, and how satisfied they are with what they run. Confidence in the ledger lags the spending. Measurement trails money. Fewer than half of enterprises (44%) rigorously track the cost and return of their AI compute; the majority track only partially (39%), cannot quantify it yet (20%), or have not prioritized it (6%). That gap is consequential given Finding 5, where total cost of ownership was the second-ranked buying criterion — enterprises are choosing providers on an economic basis they mostly cannot yet measure. Satisfaction with current infrastructure is moderately positive but not enthusiastic: on a five-point scale, overall satisfaction averages 4.0, with ease of implementation (3.8) and value for money (3.9) trailing slightly — the softness landing, tellingly, on cost. Enterprises are spending quickly and accounting slowly. Finding 8: The next bottleneck few are watching As inference shifts from compute to memory, the field scatters Finally, we asked how enterprises would address the emerging constraint in large-scale inference — the shift from GPU compute to memory, specifically KV-cache capacity. The responses reveal a frontier that is not yet a priority. The memory frontier is real but barely governed. Asked which approach they would rely on as the binding constraint in inference shifts from compute to memory bandwidth, enterprises scatter: Dell leads at 31%, Nvidia follows at 16%, and the rest fragments across storage vendors, open-source tooling, and model-level efficiency techniques. Most telling is that roughly one in five (18%) either do not recognize the constraint or have not begun to address it. For a shift that will reshape inference cost and architecture, this is an early and unsettled market — and, consistent with the measurement gap in Finding 7, one where many enterprises simply do not yet have a view. It is the next chapter of the compute gap, arriving before most have closed the current one. The bottom line: A compute gap that faster spending will widen, not close Organizations with more than 100 employees are investing in AI infrastructure faster than they can measure it. Most are still early in deployment, yet their spending intentions point past their current stack — toward specialized clouds and alternative accelerators almost none of them run today — and a clear majority intend to change providers within the year. They buy on integration and total cost of ownership rather than headline price, which is rational; the difficulty is that most cannot yet see those economics clearly. The visibility gap is concrete. The GPUs enterprises already own run at half utilization or less for the overwhelming majority, and fewer than half can rigorously track what their compute costs or returns. Satisfaction is decent but unenthusiastic, softest on value for money — the dimension hardest to judge without measurement. And the next constraint, the shift from compute to memory in large-scale inference, is arriving while most enterprises are still unaware of it. At 107 respondents in a single Q2 wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market and earlier-stage adopters — but the direction is consistent: the appetite to spend is running well ahead of the instrumentation to spend well. The compute gap is not a capacity problem that more hardware will solve on its own; it is, first, a problem of seeing what the hardware already costs. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises build that visibility before the re-platforming arrives — or buy the next layer of infrastructure as blind to its economics as the last. Based on survey responses from 107 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the results read cross-sectionally rather than as a month-over-month trend, and at 107 respondents this is a directional signal rather than a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected, skews mid-market, and leans toward earlier-stage adopters rather than the largest hyperscale operators. Respondents include managers, individual contributors, VPs/directors, and the C-suite, with buyer-credible purchasing authority, across Technology/Software, Healthcare/Life Sciences, Financial Services, Retail/E-commerce, and other industries.

ReadSource

BAIR Blog / 9:00 AM

2026 BAIR Graduate Showcase

Congratulations to the Berkeley Artificial Intelligence Research (BAIR) Lab class of 2026! This year, BAIR celebrates another remarkable group of Ph.D. graduates whose curiosity, creativity, and perseverance have pushed the frontiers of artificial intelligence and machine learning. Their work spans the breadth of modern AI — robotics and embodied intelligence, large language models and reasoning, computer vision, generative modeling, AI safety, human-AI interaction, AI for science and healthcare, and much more. Along the way, they have published influential research, built systems with real-world impact, mentored their peers, and shaped the BAIR community for the better. Now they are headed everywhere ideas travel: to faculty and postdoctoral positions, to industry research labs, and to startups of their own founding — and several are still exploring what comes next and would love to hear from you. Please join us in celebrating the achievements of these wonderful graduates. We are proud of everything they have accomplished at Berkeley, and we can’t wait to see what they do next! Thank you to our friends at the Stanford AI Lab for this idea! Baifeng Shi Email: [email protected] Website: https://bfshi.github.io/ Advisor(s): Trevor Darrell Research Blurb: I work on building generalist vision and robotic models. What's next: Member of Technical Staff at Physical Intelligence Charlie Snell Email: [email protected] Website: https://sea-snell.github.io Advisor(s): Dan Klein Research Blurb: My work aims to understand when and how the different LLM scaling paradigms can be traded off and interchanged. In particular, test-time scaling treats each prompt independently, drawing long chains of inferences and then forgetting them entirely between prompts. This differs critically from pretraining, which instead learns a compressed representation from a large dataset. I believe bridging the gap between these methods of scaling computation, presents a key open challenge in the field: how can we develop methods which turn the inferences drawn at test-time back into learned representations that the model can hold onto across interactions. Devin Guillory Email: [email protected] Website: https://devinguillory.com Advisor(s): Trevor Darrell Research Blurb: Accounting for data shifts in computer vision models What's next: Building collaborative AI systems, looking for conspirators. Eve Fleisig Email: [email protected] Website: https://efleisig.com Advisor(s): Dan Klein Research Blurb: I design language models to work reliably and fairly for the broad range of real LLM users. First, my research leverages disagreement among user preferences as signal, in order to train and evaluate LLMs for entire populations of users. Second, I work on designing rigorous evaluations to extricate challenging LLM harms that diverse users face. Finally, I work on core technical failures of LLMs, like miscalibrated confidence, to reduce downstream risks when models are deployed to users with different needs. Combined, these interventions facilitate building LLMs that minimize societal harms, and maximize benefits to a wider range of real-world users. What's next: Postdoctoral fellow at Princeton CITP Grace Luo Email: [email protected] Website: https://graceluo.net Advisor(s): Trevor Darrell Research Blurb: My research is on interpreting and controlling generative models. For example, I've worked on re-purposing image generators for computer vision tasks, and meta-modeling language activations for better LLM probing and steering. What's next: Research scientist in industry Hanlin Zhu Email: [email protected] Website: https://hanlinzhu.com/ Advisor(s): Stuart Russell, Jiantao Jiao Research Blurb: My research centers on understanding and improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). What's next: Member of Technical Staff at OpenAI Haozhi Qi Email: [email protected] Website: https://haozhi.io/ Advisor(s): Jitendra Malik, Yi Ma Research Blurb: Dexterous Manipulation and Robot Learning What's next: Research scientist at Amazon; Faculty at University of Chicago J.D. Zamfirescu-Pereira Email: [email protected] Website: https://zamfi.net Advisor(s): Bjoern Hartmann Research Blurb: My research focuses on effective human-AI co-design. I study the boundaries of language interfaces as a medium for interacting with AI, creating systems that blend language-focused interactions with structured user interfaces that draw on different levels of abstraction. I focus on language-oriented technologies, like LLMs and text-to-image models, that are powerful mediators of design processes. These technologies enable humans to describe their desires at almost any level of abstraction, from high-level goals vaguely specified (“I’d like a game to help my kid learn to read”) to low-level corrections of undesired outputs (“Don’t say ‘I know because I’ve tasted it’ when about a recipe substitution's taste”). What's next: Assistant Professor, Computer Science, UCLA Jiachen Lian Email: [email protected] Website: https://jlian2.github.io Advisor(s): Gopala Anumanchipalli Research Blurb: My research focuses on human-centered AI across speech, healthcare, and systems. Looking for: Look for AI talents to join our startup Josh Kang Email: [email protected] Website: https://joshuaminwookang.github.io/ Advisor(s): John Canny Research Blurb: I study language modeling and related topics in NLP; specific interests are human user simulation and building conversational, collaborative AI agents. What's next: AI Scientist at Mistral AI Junhao (Bear) Xiong Email: [email protected] Website: https://www.linkedin.com/in/junhao-bear-xiong Advisor(s): Jennifer Listgarten, Yun Song Research Blurb: Junhao (Bear) Xiong is a PhD candidate at UC Berkeley, advised by Jennifer Listgarten and Yun S. Song. His work focuses on machine learning methods for biology, with an emphasis on generative modeling for proteins. Previously, he studied Applied Math and Computer Science at Johns Hopkins. Looking for: Research scientist Kaylo Littlejohn Email: [email protected] Website: https://kaylolittlejohn.com Advisor(s): Gopala Anumanchipalli Research Blurb: My research is focused on speech modeling and natural language processing. I co-led the development of multimodal AI tools to accurately translate brain activity into text, audible personalized speech, and a high-fidelity "digital talking avatar" (Nature 2023, Nature Neuroscience 2025). I am also tech lead for voice modeling at Roblox. Looking for: Research Scientist / Engineer Kent Chang Email: [email protected] Website: https://kentkc.org Advisor(s): David Bamman Research Blurb: I work on NLP and multimodal machine learning, with a focus on evaluating large language models and building multimodal systems for understanding dialogue, narrative, and social interaction. My research includes benchmarks for LLM memorization, multimodal datasets sourced from feature films and television, and studies of model behavior. I'm interested in bridging computational methods with questions from the humanities and social sciences about whose voices get represented in AI systems, and about AI's broader impact. My work has appeared at EMNLP and ACL, among others. Looking for: (teaching) faculty, Research Scientist, ML/AI SWE Kevin Black Email: [email protected] Website: https://kevin.black Advisor(s): Sergey Levine Research Blurb: I work on large-scale robot learning: including imitation learning, reinforcement learning, generative modeling, real-time control, and whatever else it takes to make robots work in the real world! What's next: Research Scientist of Physical Intelligence Kunhe Yang Email: [email protected] Website: https://www.kunheyang.com/ Advisor(s): Nika Haghtalab Research Blurb: My research focuses on the theoretical foundations of designing and evaluating AI algorithms in environments shaped by human incentives and AI agency. My work spans human-centric policy learning, incentive-aware evaluation, and multi-agent collaboration and information transmission, drawing on tools from machine learning theory and computational economics. What's next: Postdoc Research at Stanford Lisa Dunlap Email: [email protected] Website: https://lisabdunlap.com Advisor(s): Joseph Gonzalez, Trevor Darrell Research Blurb: Auditing generative models. What's next: Research Engineer at Anthropic Long (Tony) Lian Email: [email protected] Website: https://tonylian.com/ Advisor(s): Trevor Darrell, Adam Yala Research Blurb: My research primarily focuses on developing real-time multi-modal multi-agent systems and parallel reasoning systems through end-to-end RL. What's next: Member of Technical Staff at Thinking Machines Lab Maulik Bhatt Email: [email protected] Website: https://maulikb.com Advisor(s): Negar Mehr Research Blurb: My research develops autonomous robots that can safely coordinate with humans and other robots in shared environments. I build scalable algorithms grounded in game theory and diffusion models that let agents reason about the intent and behavior of others around them. My work spans real-time multi-agent trajectory planning and imitation learning in the presence of multi-modality. I've validated these methods on hardware platforms ranging from quadrotors to manipulators, with the goal of making multi-agent coordination robust, interpretable, and deployable in the real world. What's next: Joining Toyota Woven's end-to-end autonomous driving team. Michael Psenka Email: [email protected] Website: https://www.michaelpsenka.io/ Advisor(s): Aditi Krishnapriyan Research Blurb: Work in various domains (reinforcement learning, world models, AI+bio/chem), generally working on longer-horizon and out-of-distribution problems in planning and interpolation (e.g. robot manipulation from start state to goal, molecular dynamics of proteins between ground states). My thesis took a variational approach (think calculus of variations) directly from deep generative models of the environment, framing path-finding as minimizing a functional induced by the learned model itself (its score, its critic, or its dynamics). Through my research I've gained insight on how to properly handle dynamics in deep learning systems, and I plan to continue developing systems that are dynamic and adaptive. What's next: Lead Research Scientist at Baseten Nathan Lichtlé Email: [email protected] Website: https://nathanlichtle.com Advisor(s): Alexandre M. Bayen Research Blurb: RL for autonomous driving. What's next: Chief Scientist & Co-founder at Yumi Health Neerja Thakkar Email: [email protected] Website: https://neerja.me/ Advisor(s): Jitendra Malik Research Blurb: My research focuses on scaling predictive world models to handle the complexity of in-the-wild motion. Using autoregressive and diffusion frameworks, I develop better representations for real-world prediction and propose methods to efficiently adapt these models to new domains. Looking for: Research scientist Nikita Mehandru Email: [email protected] Website: https://n-mehandru.github.io/ Advisor(s): Ahmed Alaa and David Bamman Research Blurb: My research develops and applies machine learning methods for clinical reasoning and disease progression modeling using unstructured text and time series data from electronic health records. In collaboration with physicians at UCSF, I bridge method development and clinical validation with the intention to build reliable, interpretable AI systems in medicine. Looking for: Research Scientist Niklas Lauffer Email: [email protected] Website: https://niklaslauffer.github.io/ Advisor(s): Stuart Russell and Sanjit Seshia Research Blurb: Niklas's research is focused on AI safety and reinforcement learning, particularly in the area of multi-agent interaction and LM agents. He's worked on enabling adversarial learning in cooperative and mixed-motive settings, solving issues of covariate shift in training LM agents on long-horizon tasks, as well as evaluating safety risks posed by LM agents in multi-agent settings. What's next: Research Scientist at Google Deepmind Qiyang Li Email: [email protected] Website: https://colinqiyangli.github.io/ Advisor(s): Sergey Levine Research Blurb: Recent progress in robotic manipulation policy learning has been largely driven by (1) the increasing availability of large-scale prior datasets and (2) the success of action chunking, where the policy predicts a short sequence of future actions rather than a single one. However, most action chunking policies are trained via supervised imitation learning, because efficient online self-improvement with reinforcement learning (RL) remains challenging—limiting real-world applicability. My PhD research studied how we could leverage prior data to optimize action-chunking policies with RL, combining empirical results with theoretical insights. Looking for: Post-doc/research scientist for RL in robotics and LLMs! Sampada Deglurkar Email: [email protected] Website: https://sdeglurkar.github.io/ Advisor(s): Prof Claire Tomlin Research Blurb: My research is in providing safety assurances for AI-enabled autonomous systems, ranging from robots to autonomous vehicles to aviation systems. For this, I have worked with uncertainty quantification for machine learning models, decision-making under uncertainty algorithms, and tools for producing probabilistic guarantees on system operation. Looking for: Research scientist, Research engineer Vinamra Benara Email: [email protected] Website: https://cs.berkeley.edu/~vbenara Advisor(s): Ion Stoica Research Blurb: My research focuses on LLM post-training, including data curation, RLHF, RLVR with VLMs, evaluations, reasoning, agentic workflows, and interpretability. I also have strong expertise in systems infrastructure for distributed computing. Looking for: Research scientist / Research Engineer Vongani Maluleke Email: [email protected] Website: https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~vongani_maluleke/ Advisor(s): Jitendra Malik and Angjoo Kanazawa Research Blurb: Vongani Maluleke is a PhD candidate at UC Berkeley (BAIR, advised by Jitendra Malik and Angjoo Kanazawa), where she led the development of MAGNet, a unified multi-agent motion generation framework that supports a wide range of motion generation tasks without retraining or architectural changes, outperforming task-specialized state-of-the-art baselines. She is currently extending this work by deploying it on a Unitree G1 humanoid to make it embody social intelligence. Before her PhD, she was a Senior AI Consultant at Deloitte, awarded Exceptional Performer two consecutive years, leading AI system development across media, telecommunications, retail, and financial services. Looking for: Research scientist Wei-Jer Chang Email: [email protected] Website: https://weijer-chang.github.io/ Advisor(s): Masayoshi Tomizuka Research Blurb: My research focuses on developing safe and intelligent autonomous systems for complex, human-centered environments. I work at the intersection of machine learning, generative models, and reinforcement learning, with applications in autonomy. My work addresses challenges in multi-agent interaction, interactive human behavior, and long-tail safety-critical scenarios at scale. Looking for: Research Scientist, Applied Scientist, Roboticist Xiuyu Li Email: [email protected] Website: https://xiuyuli.com/ Advisor(s): Kurt Keutzer Research Blurb: My research focuses on developing scalable and self-improving large language model agents, with emphasis on coding agents for complex, long-horizon tasks. This direction builds on my work in parallel reasoning, and on broader expertise in making generative models more efficient in training and inference across language and vision. What's next: Member of Technical Staff at xAI Yichen Xie Email: [email protected] Website: https://yichen928.github.io/ Advisor(s): Masayoshi Tomizuka Research Blurb: My research focuses on building multimodal foundation models and world models that understand and interact with complex physical environments. I aim to develop unified representations across modalities, enabling AI systems to reason over space, time, and dynamics toward general-purpose embodied intelligence. What's next: Research Scientist at Luma AI Yigit Efe Erginbas Email: [email protected] Website: https://www.linkedin.com/in/erginbas/ Advisor(s): Kannan Ramchandran, Thomas A. Courtade Research Blurb: My PhD research spans two threads: online learning in large-scale markets, and interpretability of large machine learning models. In the first, I work on sequential decision-making with applications to recommendation, pricing, and assortment selection. My focus is on designing algorithms with provable guarantees for welfare maximization, revenue maximization, and stability. In the second, I develop scalable attribution methods that exploit the sparse, low-degree structure of real-world interactions, using tools from signal processing and information theory. More recently, I have been exploring principled ways to evaluate the faithfulness of model self-explanations. What's next: Researcher at Hudson River Trading's AI Labs (HAIL) Yiheng Li Email: [email protected] Website: https://Yihengli.com Advisor(s): Masayoshi Tomizuka Research Blurb: I am working on vision world modeling, with prior experience in diffusion model's efficiency as well as in autonomous driving. What's next: Research Scientist at Waymo Zhe Fu Email: [email protected] Website: https://fu-zhe.com/ Advisor(s): Alexandre Bayen Research Blurb: My research focuses on physics-informed learning and control for mixed-autonomy systems, with applications in transportation. I design physics-informed neural networks to learn solutions of nonlinear partial differential equations, enabling accurate and data-efficient prediction of traffic dynamics. Building on these models, I develop both model-based and learning-based control strategies that coordinate automated vehicles to improve system-level performance. My work bridges machine learning, control, and real-world deployment, and has been validated in large-scale field experiments. More broadly, I aim to advance trustworthy, interpretable AI for decision-making in complex, real-world systems. What's next: I will be an Energy Fellow at Stanford after graduation. Also looking for Faculty, or research scientist positions in AI, control, and autonomy.

ReadSource

Simon Willison LLMs / 8:19 PM

Kimi K3, and what we can still learn from the pelican benchmark

Chinese AI lab Moonshot AI announced Kimi K3 this morning, describing it as their "most capable model to date, with 2.8 trillion parameters". It's currently available via their website and API, but an open weight release is promised "by July 27, 2026". Moonshot are calling this the first "open 3T-class model" (I guess they're rounding 2.8 trillion up to 3 trillion), taking the crown from DeepSeek's 1.6T v4 Pro . Their self-reported benchmarks have K3 mostly beating Claude Opus 4.8 max and GPT-5.5 high, while losing out to Claude Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol. A few highlights from the Artificial Analysis report on the model: "On our private long-horizon knowledge work evaluation, Kimi K3 reaches an overall Elo of 1547, +732 points from Kimi K2.6 and behind only Claude Fable 5." "Cost per task ($0.94) is similar to GPT-5.6 Sol ($1.04), ~1/2 the price of Opus 4.8 ($1.80) and higher than open weights peers" "Kimi K3’s token usage on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index decreased significantly, using 21% fewer output tokens than K2.6." The model is also now the leading model on Arena.ai's Frontend Code arena , surpassing even Claude Fable 5. The new model is notable for the pricing: $3/million input tokens and $15/million output tokens, putting it at the same level as Anthropic's Claude Sonnet series and making it the most expensive model released by a Chinese AI lab to date. This is a significant increase on their earlier models such as Kimi K2.6 at $0.95/$4. 2.8 trillion parameters is also more than twice the size of that 1T model. But how does it pelican? I used OpenRouter (to avoid signing up for a Moonshot API key) with the llm-openrouter plugin to generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle: llm -m openrouter/moonshotai/kimi-k3 'Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle' Here's the transcript . It looks like this: That pelican took 95 input tokens and 16,658 output tokens (13,241 were reasoning tokens), for a total cost of 25 cents ! Since K3 accepts image input I ran it against that rendered SVG above (with my alt text prompt ) and got back (for 0.6 cents ): Cartoon illustration of a white pelican wearing a red scarf, riding a red bicycle along a gray road with white dashed lines; the pelican has a large orange beak and webbed orange feet pedaling, with white motion lines behind it; the background shows a light blue sky with white clouds, a yellow sun, two small black birds in flight, and green grass with tiny white flowers in the foreground What can we learn from the pelican? My Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle test is 21 months old now. It was never a particularly great benchmark. It started out as a joke on how absurdly difficult it is to compare these models, but then for the first year it turned out to have a surprising correlation to how good the models actually were. That connection has been mostly severed now. The GPT-5.6 and Claude Fable 5 pelicans are outclassed by GLM-5.2 , and much as I love GLM I don't think that's a Fable-class model. (I'm still not convinced that labs are training for the benchmark - if they were, I'd expect much better results. There's a chance that Gemini has optimized for any combination of an animal on a vehicle though!) The biggest limitation of the pelican is that it doesn't touch at all on the thing that matters most for today's model: agentic tool calling and the ability to operate tools reliably as conversations grow in length. So don't go using pelicans to compare models! All of that said, I still get a decent amount of value out of running the benchmark myself. Firstly, it's a forcing function for actually trying the model. If I show you a pelican, that means I've managed to run a prompt through it. If the model has an official API I'll use that, if it's open weight (and small enough to fit a 128GB M5 MacBook Pro) I'll try running it on my own machine, usually via llama.cpp or LM Studio or Ollama . I'll frequently use OpenRouter since that usually provides a proxy to an official API without me needing a new API key. Most of my pelicans are generated using my LLM CLI tool , which helps encourage me to ensure the latest models are supported by that (via one of its plugins). More importantly though, even the act of a single prompt to "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle" can reveal interesting model characteristics. Consider the result for Kimi K3 today. Running those simple prompts helped emphasize several points about the model. It only has one reasoning effort right now, "max" - and it shows. The model consumed 13,241 reasoning tokens to output 3,417 tokens of response. This is expensive - the pelican cost 25 cents! How does the prompt "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle" add up to 95 input tokens? OpenAI's tokenizer counts 10, Anthropic's counts 10 for Opus 4.6, 30 for Opus 4.7 and 25 for Sonnet 5/Fable 5. Prompting "hi" to Kimi K3 counted 86 tokens, suggesting there may be an 85 token hidden system prompt. It refused to leak it though. Vision works well: the alt text it generated is very good. K3 currently only has one thinking effort level, but I've been deriving quite a bit of value recently from running the same pelican prompt through different effort levels to get a quick idea for what impact those have. Here's my matrix for the GPT-5.6 model family , for example. Really though the main things I gain from the pelican test are: It's a "hello world" exercise for prompting a model A rough cost and reasoning estimate for a simple task Confirmation that the model can output valid SVG and has a basic idea of geometry and spatial awareness. This is a much bigger deal for the smaller models that run on my laptop. It's still interesting to compare pelicans between releases in the same model family. K3's pelican is a notable improvement from Kimi 2.5 . It's something I can share that demonstrates I've tried it. Plus a comment with a pelican in it is kind of a tradition on Hacker News at this point, any time I'm late I get comments asking where it is! Tags: ai , generative-ai , llms , llm-pricing , pelican-riding-a-bicycle , llm-release , ai-in-china , artificial-analysis , moonshot , kimi

ReadSource

Simon Willison LLMs / 7:46 PM

The new GPT-5.6 family: Luna, Terra, Sol

OpenAI's latest flagship model hit general availability this morning , and comes in three sizes: Luna, Terra, and Sol (from smallest to largest). The new models are priced per 1M input/output tokens as Luna $1/$6, Terra $2.50/$15, Sol $5/$30. For comparison, the Claude Opus series are $5/$25 and the Claude Fable 5 is $10/$50, but price-per-million tokens doesn't tell us much now that the number of reasoning tokens can differ so much between models for the same task. All three models have a February 16th 2026 knowledge cutoff, a million token context window, and 128,000 maximum output tokens. OpenAI's biggest benchmark claim concerns long-running agentic performance, with one benchmark showing all three models outperforming Claude Fable 5: We trained GPT-5.6 to get more useful work from every token. On Agents’ Last Exam , an evaluation of long-running professional workflows across 55 fields, GPT-5.6 Sol sets a new high of 53.6, eclipsing Claude Fable 5 (adaptive reasoning) by 13.1 points. Even at medium reasoning, it beats Fable 5 by 11.4 points at roughly one-quarter the estimated cost. That efficiency extends to smaller models, which are essential to making intelligence more abundant and affordable: GPT-5.6 Terra and GPT-5.6 Luna outperform Fable 5 at around one-sixteenth the cost. Amusingly, one self-reported benchmark that Fable 5 crushed the GPT-5.6 family on was SWE-Bench Pro, where Fable 5 got 80% compared to GPT-5.6 Sol getting 64.6%. This may help explain why OpenAI chose to publish this article yesterday specifically calling out SWE-Bench Pro for problems they found while auditing that benchmark: In light of these results, we estimate that ~30% of SWE-bench Pro tasks are broken, and advise that model developers carefully examine results I've had some early access to GPT-5.6 Sol - it's definitely very competent, though so far it hasn't struck me as better than Fable at the kind of complex coding tasks I've been using with Anthropic's model. As usual, the model guidance for using GPT-5.6 has the most interesting details. There are a bunch of new API features that I need to explore (and probably add support for in LLM ), including: Programmatic Tool Calling allows the models to "compose and run JavaScript that orchestrates tool calls" - which sounds to me like it could help bridge the gap between MCPs and full terminal sessions that can compose CLI utilities in useful ways. Also reminiscent of the dynamic filtering mechanism Anthropic added to their web search tool, which allows code execution against web results as part of a single model turn. Multi-agent lets the model "spin up subagents for parallel, focused work" - the sub-agent pattern now baked into the core API. Prompt cache breakpoints brings the Claude model of prompt caching to OpenAI, letting you be explicit about where the cache breakpoints are rather than relying on the API to detect them automatically. Personally I much prefer automatic detection (still supported by OpenAI), but presumably there are optimization cost savings to be had here if you put the work in. You can now set detail: original on image requests to avoid resizing the image at all before it is processed. Here's a full page with 18 different pelicans - for reasoning efforts none, low, medium, high, xhigh, and max across the three different models. It also lists their token and calculated costs - the least expensive was gpt-5.6-luna at effort none for 0.71 cents, the most expensive was gpt-5.6-sol at max reasoning level for 48.55 cents. In further pelican news, if you jump to 17:50 in their livestream from this morning you'll see OpenAI's own demo of 3D pelicans riding a tricycle, a bicycle, a pony, and another pelican! Tags: ai , openai , generative-ai , llms , llm-tool-use , llm-pricing , pelican-riding-a-bicycle , llm-release , gpt-5

ReadSource

Latent Space / 5:04 AM

[AINews] OpenAI reports Navier-Stokes singularity find in 88 hours using Astra-next, roughly 10,000 agents and 130B tokens (>$40M), a contender for second ever Millennium Prize awarded

Overshadowing Cognition's $48B Series E, Mistral's $24B Series D, Meta's Muse agent, and GPT Image 2.5. The most jam packed, feel the AGI day in the history of AI.

ReadSource

Mistral AI Blog / 12:00 PM

Mistral raises €3B to make sovereign, open-weight AI the technology frontier

Mistral today announced that it has raised €3 billion in a Series D funding round at a post-money valuation of more than €21 billion.

ReadSource

Bloomberg AI / 11:00 AM

AI Health Company Forus Raises $150 Million at a $3 Billion Value

Healthcare automation startup Forus has raised $150 million at a $3 billion valuation just months after completing a previous funding round. The Series C round was led by Bain Capital Ventures, a firm that has invested in the company since its early-stage funding. Accel, Thrive Capital, General Catalyst, Redpoint Ventures, BoxGroup and Pear VC also participated in the round, Forus said Tuesday.

ReadSource

Hacker News AI / 11:09 PM

Gimlet's Series B

HN 6 pts · 2 comments

ReadSource

Hacker News AI / 3:32 AM

Instinct is raising a $250M Series B

HN 1 pts · 0 comments

ReadSource

AWS Machine Learning Blog / 4:24 PM

Preparing data for supervised fine-tuning Part 2: Advanced data strategies

The advanced side of supervised fine-tuning data prep. This second post in a two-part series covers evaluating data readiness with learning curves, selecting high-value data subsets, augmenting data with synthetic and distilled examples, and mixing data sources to prevent catastrophic forgetting.

ReadSource

Latent Space / 4:16 PM

Lovable CTO: The Future of SaaS Is Apps That Agents Can Use

Lovable is branching out from AI-powered web app creation and into MCP-powered ‘capabilities’. We talk to CTO Fabian Hedin.

ReadSource

Microsoft AI Blog / 4:00 PM

What’s the Tea? Lessons from leaders navigating AI transformation

I drink a lot of tea. English breakfast, usually, in a real cup, every day. So when my team came to me with an idea for a new series, they wanted it to be relatable, and honestly, I was hesitant at first. But at the end of the day, the name captured something I find genuinely energizing right now: the pace at which leaders are transforming their organizations with AI, and how generously they're sharing what they're learning with one another. The post What’s the Tea? Lessons from leaders navigating AI transformation appeared first on The Microsoft Cloud Blog .

ReadSource

The Decoder / 11:13 AM

PixVerse's $2B valuation shows investors still believe AI video generation has room for another winner

Singapore-based AI video startup PixVerse is now valued at over $2 billion after an extended Series C round. The article PixVerse's $2B valuation shows investors still believe AI video generation has room for another winner appeared first on The Decoder .

ReadSource

MIT News AI / 4:00 AM

MIT in the media: For the future of tech, "Massachusetts can absolutely lead"

Leaders, faculty across MIT discuss fostering innovation and talent in Greater Boston in special series of articles published alongside the outlet's annual list of 'Tech Power Players'

ReadSource

TechCrunch AI / 12:00 AM

AI research startup Listen Labs scrubbed a $1.5B funding round for Salesforce talks

Listen Labs walked away from a signed Series C term sheet from Menlo Ventures, sources say.

ReadSource

TechCrunch AI / 2:17 PM

Mistral raises €3B as sovereign AI becomes big business

The French AI lab has raised €3 billion at a €21 billion valuation in a Series D round led by Samsung, Scaleup Europe, and PSG Equity.

ReadSource

Bloomberg AI / 5:00 AM

Mistral AI Raises €3 Billion With Samsung Leading the Round

French artificial intelligence company Mistral AI is raising €3 billion ($3.49 billion) in a Series D funding round, with Samsung Electronics joining the round. Chief Executive Officer Arthur Mensch argues that the company is probably still undervalued and that macroeconomic reasons are starting to show that open source models will win. He speaks with Bloomberg’s Tom Mackenzie. (Source: Bloomberg)

ReadSource

TechCrunch AI / 11:36 PM

XDOF, just 3 months out of stealth, is in talks for a Series B at a $1.2B valuation

The round is being raised just months after the robot data startup exited from stealth.

ReadSource

TechCrunch AI / 4:04 PM

Wonderful more than doubles its valuation to $5B in under 6 months

Wonderful said it will use its $550 million Series C funding to develop products faster, expand its FDE teams, and meet demand for its products.

ReadSource

TechCrunch AI / 10:08 PM

AfterQuery reportedly becomes Y Combinator’s fastest-ever unicorn, now valued at $3.2B

AI model-training startup AfterQuery has reportedly raised a round that valued it at $3.2 billion, just five months after announcing its $30 million Series A at a $300 million valuation in April.

ReadSource

TechCrunch AI / 3:30 AM

India’s Ringg gets backing from Peak XV as it pushes voice AI past the phone call

Ringg has raised $10 million from Peak XV as a part of its Series A extension.

ReadSource

Latest story in this edition: 3:01 PM

Back to front page