Blogmarks
Filters: Sorted by date
Claude Cowork and chat are now one Claude (via) In hopefully good news for anyone who, like me, was increasingly confused at Cowork v.s. Claude v.s. Claude Code:
Starting today, Claude Cowork and chat are merging into one Claude. Bring a quick question, or hand over a report due at noon, and Claude takes it from there, even after you’ve closed your laptop. [...]
This is rolling out to Pro and Max plans first, in the Claude app on web, desktop, and mobile over the coming weeks to existing and new users on these plans.
I guess this means Claude is becoming a general agent in its own right. Echoes of OpenAI renaming their Codex desktop app to ChatGPT a few weeks ago.
On the one hand, this saves me some work, in that I was planning to finally figure out the boundaries between Cowork and regular Claude and write a follow-up to my piece on Understanding ChatGPT Work.
I have a hunch that figuring out what this actually means in terms of features and surfaces is still going to take quite a bit of work.
The contagion of fear (via) Bryan Cantrill responds to the tweet by former Anthropic employee Jacob Coxon confirming that many Anthropic researchers believe AI "could kill us all by the end of the decade".
Bryan shares a story of his own youthful mistakes causing unjustified panic among less technical peers, and warns against doing the same:
These ghoulish claims strike brazenly at the hearth, and given the obvious importance of AI, it is unsurprising that they have leapt into the mainstream, with people asking the natural question: how would that happen? The answers always rely on hand-wavy extrapolation into the future; for example, Jacob Coxon cites "hacking critical infrastructure" and "extinction-level bioweapons" without further elaboration. But Coxon is not an expert on critical infrastructure, nor on bioweapons — nor, for that matter, on extinction. [...]
That said, we should not expect the public to understand LLMs, critical infrastructure, bioweapons, extinction biology, etc. — that burden must lie with those making the claim. The lesson that I learned (shamefully) decades ago is that domain experts, by way of their expertise, implicitly hold the public’s trust — and we must not abuse it. It is incumbent upon us to be circumspect in our claims — and maximally so when raising the alarm.
Bryan talked about his doubts about the bioweapons concerns in the recent episode of Oxide and Friends that I joined. You can hear more of his thoughts on that starting at 51m44s in that episode. Here's 57m04s:
I really think we need to be careful because it's so easy to be overcome with fear when we kind of make up these... it can give you biological weapons. Like, how? I mean, can we please have a biologist weigh in on this? Or can we have like someone who's got experience with bioweapons? [...] The bioweapon thing just gets under my fingernails because it leaves so much to the imagination that we insert with fear.
So you want to use OpenRouter? (via) One of OpenRouter's selling points is that it "handles fallbacks automatically and picks the most cost-effective option for each request", so you can call a single API endpoint for a model and get routed to the best available backend provider.
Mohamed Moustafa points out a whole set of ways that this can cause you problems. Different providers run different serving software with different optimizations and settings, which means that the same OpenRouter endpoint can serve model requests that behave in different ways.
Some providers even lack vision capability for vision models, and the way the reasoning effort option is processed can differ as well.
Thankfully you can control which provider is routed to using the provider.only option. The /endpoints method returns the list of available providers for a specific model ID.
Soft-deprecating re.match() (via) Python has a concept of soft deprecation, where APIs are marked as "should no longer be used to write new code" without any promise/threat to remove them in the future.
Python 3.15 release manager Hugo van Kemenade describes how in the upcoming 3.15 release soft deprecation has come for the venerable but deeply confusing re.match() function. It's now available with the much clearer alternative re.prefixmatch() name - reflecting how it anchors at the beginning of the string but not the end.
Most of the time you probably want re.search() (match this pattern anywhere in the string) or re.fullmatch() (match the entire string) instead.
Datasette 1.0a39 and 0.65.4 security releases. Today we're releasing two new security patch versions of Datasette: 1.0a39 and 0.65.4 - one for the current alpha series and one for the stable 0.65.x family.
These are security fixes which you should apply if you are running a Datasette instance on the public web - in particular if that instance mixes both public and private tables.
Following issues reported by Sevban Dönmez, Alex Garcia and I ran an extensive audit of Datasette using Claude Fable 5.1, GPT-5.6, and GPT-6 Astra. We then spent almost a week collaborating on and reviewing the fixes.
They helped find some very subtle bugs. We'll be incorporating security audits by frontier models into all of our development work going forward.
Alex came up with a way of splitting the work which I found extremely productive:
Alex Garcia and I worked together running and then responding to the audit, working in a shared private repository. For most of the issues we split the work: one of us would create the automated tests highlighting the issue, then the other would implement the fix. This ensured that two separate humans had eyes on each of the issues, in addition to our coding agents running different models.
Any Nix package, live in your browser (via) Farid Zakaria calls this his "magnum opus of Nix work", and I can see why.
trynix.dev provides a qemu-wasm powered x86_64 Linux virtual machine running entirely in your browser through WebAssembly. That VM can then be booted with any Nix package from the past 13 years. They are URL addressable, so you can navigate to this page:
https://trynix.dev/?pkg=python3%403.6.2
Then click "Load" and get an interactive shell against a virtual machine running Python 3.6.2 from 2017.
Farid is building all sorts of neat things on top of this. One recent example: Review a pull request by booting it introduces trynix-preview, described like this:
GitHub action that comments a link on a pull request which lets you boot the PR’s build in the browser using https://trynix.dev. No servers, just browsers.
Native is now the future of mobile at Shopify (via) Shopify are moving from React Native back to separate Swift and Kotlin codebases for their native apps, for the exact reason you would expect:
We decided to switch from native to React Native in 2020 for three reasons:
- Stop building the same features twice
- Allow developers to work across the stack
- Spend less time chasing feature parity and more time shipping value
[...]
Native still means building and maintaining software on two platforms, that cost has not disappeared. What changed is that agents can now do enough of the implementation, translation, testing, and review work that it’s no longer the deciding factor it was in 2020.
It's a well-written post, which gives full credit to React Native as a great platform for the six years they were using it.
Shopify are the maintainers of three significant React Native libraries: react-native-skia, flash-list, and restyle. The first two are finding new homes; the third "has a smaller user base than our other libraries" and will be archived at the end of 2026.
Introducing ChatGPT Images 2.5. OpenAI's image generation models are apparently used "more than 3 billion images across ChatGPT Images and the GPT‑Image models in the API". This latest release improves their instruction-following ability across multiple turns, responds faster, and "is better at preserving the subjects in your reference photos".
There are two new model IDs in the API: gpt-image-2.5-sunburst and gpt-image-2.5-flare. Based on this I think Sunburst is the stronger option:
Choose Sunburst for workflows where editing precision matters most, and Flare for fast, high-quality everyday image generation.
I upgraded my openai_image.py CLI tool to support passing in one or more reference images, so now this works:
uv run https://tools.simonwillison.net/python/openai_image.py \
'add a raccoon scientist studying the chart thoughtfully' \
-i https://static.simonwillison.net/static/2026/openai-agent-usage.webp \
-m gpt-image-2.5-sunburstThis is the original image, and here's what I got back from that prompt to "add a raccoon scientist studying the chart thoughtfully":
Creepy crawlies (via) Konstantin Ryabitsev discusses how bad the "background radiation" of abusive crawlers has become from the perspective of git.kernel.org, the official Git repository for the Linux kernel:
TL;DR: we spend more CPU cycles rendering commits for scrapers than we spend on all other kinds of legitimate access, including git clones. At any one time, across 5 geo-distributed nodes, there are 14 CPU cores doing nothing but rendering git commits as html.
I worry about this a lot from the perspective of Datasette, which serves a huge number of crawlable web pages.
Research acceleration: The view inside OpenAI. Apparently today is RSI day at OpenAI, for Recursive Self-Improvement - I think it's their new AGI. Both this piece and the new essay An Alien Mind (by Chief Scientist Jakub Pachocki) talk about it, and this one doesn't even bother to expand the acronym.
Included are details on how OpenAI's own research team are using coding agents. Like pretty much everyone else 2026 has been the year that agentic engineering really took off at OpenAI, best illustrated by this chart:
I'm intrigued at what caused that significant acceleration in AI spend per researcher in late July - my best guess is that's when internal employees gained access to the model later released as GPT-6 Astra.
The purpose of DNS is to spread scams. Terence Eden shares some daunting statistics in support of his take that "the Domain Name System's purpose seems to be a vector for criminals to run scams on people at a terrifyingly high rate".
On this Interisle report (via Andrew Campling), Terence says:
It says 85 million new registrations of gTLDs were made in 2025. Of those 8.5 million were added to blocklists by May 2025. It reckons that a 10% abuse rate is the likely floor for these numbers and it's probably closer to 20%. One in five newly registered domains with a gTLD are scams. That's a bloody crisis.
I had no idea. Apparently ICANN have been discussing this problem for years.
Introducing GPT-6 Astra for developers (via) Blink and you'll miss it, but there's a familiar creature at 1m59s:
Across the board, Astra has more attention to detail, better understanding of the user's prompt, and can build more sophisticated outputs. In particular, it excels at building 3D models. I've seen it make incredible renderings of gardens, shipyards, animals, cityscapes, even Dyson spheres.
Astra really does believe in putting a red neckerchief on a pelican riding a bicycle.
GPT‑6 Astra (via) GPT-6 Astra is "rolling out today to a limited set of organizations and over the coming days will become available to all ChatGPT Plus, Pro, Business, and Enterprise users, as well as through the OpenAI API and AWS" - I've not tried it yet myself, so I don't have a great deal to say about it yet.
It's going to be API priced at the same rate as Claude Fable 5 and 5.1: $10/million input and $50/million output. This is clearly OpenAI's Fable competitor, and appears to score higher than Fable on most of OpenAI's self-reported benchmarks.
Most impressively, Astra scores 99.9% on the recent (released in March) ARC-AGI 3 benchmark - though notably Fable 5 does not yet have a published result, and the ARC-AGI blog notes that the 99.9% score was achieved for $19K using OpenAI's custom "Provider Adapter harness", while the default ARC-AGI harness scored 62.7% for $26K.
The Provider Adapter harness preserves opaque reasoning state between requests and uses compaction for longer conversations, allowing the model to reuse prior work.
Unsurprisingly, given the recent Hugging Face incident, Astra is a beast at security tasks. It scores 100% on ExploitBench (GPT-5.6 Sol got 78.5%), 42.4% on ExploitGym (Sol got 30.3%), and 99.2% within four attempts on SRE-Bench binary reverse engineering compared to Sol's 68.7%.
It's also better at long context: on OpenAI's eight-needle benchmark it got 100% at 256K–512K tokens and 96.3% at 512K–1M tokens. OpenAI may have vanquished one of the ongoing challenges with long context processing.
It doesn't win at everything though. Artificial Analysis note that Astra is still beaten by Fable on their Intelligence Index:
Sits beside GPT-5.6 Sol in Intelligence: GPT-6 Astra scores equal to GPT-5.6 Sol in the Index at 61. This is 5 points lower than Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback). The model also trails Meta’s newly released Muse Spark 1.3 (max).
It did better on their Coding Agent Index:
Leads Coding Agent Index cost efficiency frontier: At max effort, GPT-6 Astra costs about the same as GPT-5.6 Sol (max) while scoring 2 points higher on the Index. Per task, the model is less than half the cost of Claude Fable 5, for the same score.
I'll write more about Astra once I get access to it. The API model label once it rolls out will be gpt-6-astra.
Python 3.15.0 candidate 2 is here! (via) Hugo van Kemenade (release manager for Python 3.14 and 3.15) announces the final release candidate for Python 3.15, scheduled for release in October:
Entering the release candidate phase, only reviewed code changes which are clear bug fixes are allowed between this release candidate and the final release. [...]
We strongly encourage maintainers of third-party Python projects to prepare their projects for 3.15 during this phase, and publish Python 3.15 wheels on PyPI to be ready for the final release of 3.15.0, and to help other projects do their own testing. Any binary wheels built against Python 3.15.0 release candidates will work with future versions of Python 3.15.
Back in 2021 I found a bug in Python 3.10 by running my test suites against it... but I hadn't done this during the RC period, so that bug had already shipped! Since then I've always paid much closer attention to these RCs.
The new RC isn't available for GitHub Actions just yet - keep an eye on actions/python-versions for that. For the moment though you can add this to a testing matrix:
strategy:
matrix:
python-version: ["3.14", "3.15"]
steps:
- uses: actions/setup-python@v7
with:
python-version: ${{ matrix.python-version }}
allow-prereleases: true
check-latest: trueThe allow-prereleases and check-latest flags mean that today this will test against RC1, and when RC2 lands it will automatically switch to that version (and then the stable version once that comes out.)
Update: Datasette passes, sqlite-utils passes, LLM is currently blocked waiting for a 3.15 wheel for scikit-learn, which is optionally used in the test suite.
Introducing wrapture. New from Graham Dumpleton (of wrapt, mod_wsgi, and New Relic's Python agent fame), who describes Wrapture as taking the monkeypatching ideas from wrapt and extending them to apply to testing and tracing at the same time.
Wrapture (full documentation here) makes it easy to wrap any function or method such that all access can be traced, or can be overridden to return a different value.
It acts as both an alternative to unittest.mock and a way to implement tracing against an existing project:
Attaching observation to code you do not control, recording what flows through it, and doing so without disturbing the program being watched, is a problem I have never really stopped thinking about.
Wrapture includes OpenTelemetry support and even has an entirely configuration-based mechanism for adding tracing to an existing Python project, which looks like this:
capture = "summary"
[[observe]]
target = "domain:Calculator"
name = ["outer", "inner"]
[[sink]]
type = "jsonlines"
path = "trace.jsonl"This is still a very young project - just a few weeks old - but it's off to a very promising start.
Interestingly, this is also Graham's first attempt at large entirely agent-driven project:
Every line of code and documentation in wrapture was written by an AI assistant working under my direction. I want to be upfront about that, and equally upfront about what it was not. This was not vibe coding, where a one-shot prompt produces a pile of generated code and the person driving hopes for the best because they lack the knowledge to judge what came back. Vibe coding has earned its bad reputation. I engineered wrapture carefully from the start. I have spent a long time in this particular corner of Python and knew exactly what the result needed to be, and the AI was the means of producing it rather than the source of the design.
In a follow-up post, Unit testing with wrapture, Graham shows the testing patterns supported by the new library:
def test_stub_with_wrapture(): with wrapture.binding( Gateway, "charge" ).on_call.returns({ "id": "stub", "amount": 0} ): assert OrderService().place( 500 )["id"] == "stub"
And this neat example of a test that calls and then modifies the return value from the original method:
def test_pinned_result_with_wrapture(): charge = wrapture.binding( Gateway, "charge" ) charge.on_call.transforms_result( lambda r: {**r, "id": "ch_TEST"} ) with charge: assert OrderService().place( 500 ) == { "id": "ch_TEST", "amount": 500 }
(In both of these examples the OrderService().place(...) method calls Gateway().charge(...).)
Introducing Hy4 Preview. New open weight text input (no vision) LLM from Chinese company Tencent today: 770B total parameters, 49B active parameters, 1M token context window, 1.56TB on Hugging Face.
This is a big size increase from their previous Hy3 in July, which was 295B, 21B active, 256,000 context, 598GB.
I recently started using model chat templates to better understand their capabilities. Here's Hy4's chat_template.jinja on Hugging Face, which includes this section:
{%- if not reasoning_effort is defined %}
{%- set reasoning_effort = 'high' %}
{%- elif reasoning_effort not in ['high', 'no_think'] %}
{%- if reasoning_effort is none %}
{{- raise_exception('reasoning_effort error : None, should be no_think/high') }}
{%- else %}
{{- raise_exception('reasoning_effort error : ' + reasoning_effort + ', should be no_think/high') }}
{%- endif %}
{%- endif %}So it looks like there are just two reasoning effort levels: "high" (the default) and "no_think" (reason by disabled).
I tried my "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle" prompt with the default high reasoning via OpenRouter and got this:
Quoting the reasoning trace:
[...] Let's maybe add a helmet? It could improve riding theme, but may obscure head. Maybe a small cycling cap or helmet? The user didn't ask; can add red helmet? Might be cute. But pelican with big beak; a helmet might obscure. Better maybe no.
Maybe add sunglasses? no.
Maybe add water? no.
It's interesting how the reasoning trace uses slightly truncated English, presumably because perfect grammar isn't useful or token efficient for hidden reasoning text.
Just a rumour of a bug is enough to find a security exploit these days (via) Anil Madhavapeddy is a professor of computer science at Cambridge and a core maintainer of the OCaml compiler. In this somewhat alarming post he reports that security issues in OCaml projects are seeing evidence of attempted exploits within minutes of patches being shared for discussion:
This normally takes a few days and a release within a week or two is reasonable. Within about ten minutes (!) this website was fielding probes for percent-encoded traversal sequences, indicating that automated watchers are keeping an eye on public repositories.
Modern coding agents have become so effective at finding flaws that the slightest hint at a new bug can be enough information for them to find it, something Anil has been able to demonstrate using his own agents, switching to DeepSeek V4 Pro when Claude Fable refused the task.
Anil points out that this rate of discovery appears incompatible with existing open source embargo practices for new issues. If an issue can become an exploit this fast, we need to figure out new processes for keeping our communities safe.
rclone maintainer Nick Craig-Wood confirms in the Hacker News comments that his project is seeing this problem:
In the first 10 years of the rclone project we received about 20 security disclosures through GitHub. We had to deal with over 40 in the last month! That has taken a huge amount of my time, even using AI tools to triage and come up with fixes for review.
The hit rate for those security disclosures is pretty good - about 75% of them have a nugget of something which needs looking at. [...]
GitHub assigns CVEs for the advisories. Before the AI apocalypse they took 2-3 days for an assignment but now it they are running at 3-4 weeks so I have to send the point releases out with CVE-PENDING in the changelog which isn't ideal.
Breaking Claude Code Opus 5 Auto Mode. Anthropic are putting a great deal of faith in Claude Code's auto mode for protecting their coding agent users against prompt injection attacks. They recently made that the default and have made bold claims about its effectiveness.
Johann Rehberger is one of the most credible prompt injection researchers active today. He found an attack against auto mode which he claims works 80% of the time, by tricking Claude Code into downloading and uncompressing a zip archive, then executing code that imports base64 without noticing that this will import and execute a local struct.py file extracted from the archive.
In a few cases auto mode directly prevented the agent from preventing harmful code from continuing to execute!
In a few runs Claude tried to terminate the malware process once it noticed the compromise, but Auto Mode denied the cleanup command.
Claude detects the compromise, but Auto Mode blocks its cleanup command
The safety mechanism itself can become part of the failure. The classifier allowed the creation of the malware process, but then it blocked the command intended to stop it!
I agree with Johann's conclusion here: the only safe way to run agents if there's any risk of attracting the attention of an adversarial attack is with a sandbox:
- Run unattended coding agents in a container, VM or OS sandbox.
- Restrict network egress.
- Monitor your agents.
- Do not expose home directories, SSH keys, cloud credentials,… to the agent runtime. [...]
Update 30th August 2026: On Lobste.rs hyperpape points out that this doesn't fit the bill of a classic prompt injection attack because at no point are malicious instructions from the website accidentally followed by the LLM. They're right: this is more of a confused environment attack where the nature of the environment that the agent is exposed to results in an exploit.
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next (via) Another open weights model from Qwen. This one is "a multimodal MoE model that also serves as an early preview of the architecture used in Qwen4".
It's pretty big: 125B parameters but only 6B active which means it gets a significant performance boost.
I've been trying it out on a DGX Spark using these Unsloth quantized models. I'm still exploring the model - so far I've tried the 72.5GB UD-IQ1_S one (producing these pelicans) and the 78.9GB UD-Q2_K_XL (producing these).
My favorite so far was this xhigh reasoning effort one from UD-Q2_K_XL:
EVE Online: The Move to Python 3 Begins! (via) EVE Online has been one of the most interesting case studies in Python at scale for over twenty years now.
They've been running on Stackless Python since their launch in 2003, and their last major upgrade was 16 years ago, to Stackless Python 2.7 in 2010.
Their upgrade to Python 3 will start using the futurize script against 2.4 million lines of code, followed by careful manual review of the ~20,000 places where Python 2 and 3 behavior differ - for example 1 / 2 is 0 in Python 2 but is 0.5 in Python 3.
There's nothing in this announcement about how they plan to replace Stackless, but at their conference last year they presented Scheduling in Carbon: Leaving Stackless Python Behind describing how they replaced Stackless in the Carbon engine for their more recent game EVE Frontier, using their (now open source) carbonengine/scheduler library.
Your executable is a SQLite database (via) Farid Zakaria describes a neat Linux pattern for creating a SQLite database file that can be directly used as an executable binary.
The trick sets the SQLite file format's 4-byte application ID (68 bytes into the file) to SELF, standing for Structured Executable & Linkable Format. The various components of the ELF executable format are then arranged into a number of different SQLite tables, using this schema.
Their self-exec interpreter (C code here) can then extract and execute the necessary pieces.
You can additionally use a Linux mechanism called binfmt_misc to teach the kernel to execute that any time it encounters an executable matching that binary pattern. Farid uses NixOS here, but without NixOS I think registration looks something like this:
printf '%s\n' ':self:M:68:SELF::/usr/local/bin/self-exec:' \
> /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc/register
Anthropic’s best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive (via) A few interesting numbers in this FT story gathered from "people with knowledge of the matter":
- Anthropic's "annualized revenue" for July is up to $65bn - it was $47bn in May, and I collected more historic numbers here.
- Anthropic expect Q3 to be profitable according to the same model they used to declare Q2 profitable. "It also told investors that it had 6,000 customers that spend $100,000 annually or more."
- As for OpenAI, "annualised revenue has jumped 35 per cent in the quarter to date and is now over $40bn, with the launch of GPT 5.6 in July jolting the company’s performance after a sluggish start to the year".
This article also introduced me to the Ramp AI index, which uses billing data from 70,000 Ramp credit card using companies to estimate model adoption.
Here's Ramp's breakdown of Anthropic model spend for July 2026, which looks reasonable given that Opus 5 was only released on July 24th, and supports the idea that Fable's cost has made it a less popular model:
- Opus 4.8: 28.0%
- Sonnet 4.6: 8.3%
- Fable 5: 8.0%
- Opus 4.6: 6.9%
- Sonnet 5: 3.6%
- Opus 5: 3.5%
- Opus 4.7: 1.7%
- Sonnet 4.5: 1.3%
- Haiku 4.5: 1.0%
- Opus 4.5: 0.7%
Stop Making TUIs. Thomas Ptacek advocates for building real native user interfaces for even the smallest of personal tools, because coding agents have reduced the cost of getting a usable-enough GUI up and running to almost nothing.
I wrote about my vibe-coded bandwidth and GPU monitoring macOS task bar apps back in March, and I'm still using both of those on a daily basis.
I'm not habitually knocking out real UIs for my other projects yet, but I'm running out of excuses!
Thomas:
If you haven’t tried your hand at turning one of your 500 throwaway CLIs into a native app, you’re doing yourself a disservice. Go build a native UI. It’ll probably change the way you think.
ChatGPT search now uses the site:operator at scale. Promptwatch is part of the emerging "GEO" space, for Generative Engine Optimization - the chatbot version of SEO, where companies offer tools and consulting to help your site increase its presence in replies to prompts inside tools like ChatGPT.
The Promptwatch product uses automation to track responses to prompts across end-user chat products like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. They publish aggregate reports on this as part of their own content marketing strategy, which do seem to provide credible hints as to otherwise invisible design changes to those products.
Their own tracking shows a notable change aligned with the GPT-5.6 rollout earlier this month:
The percentage of all ChatGPT Search fanout queries that contain the site:operator, per day. The share hovered between 0.3% and 0.5% for weeks, dipped briefly to 0.15% on August 3 to 5 (consistent with a staged rollout or pre-launch experiment), then jumped to 16-17% on August 8.
It's important to note that these figures only reflect the prompts for which they have automated tracking enabled.
This corresponds to OpenAI's somewhat vague August 6th announcement:
For Plus and Pro users, we’re updating GPT‑5.6 Sol in Chat to be more reliable with facts and provide more focused answers.
Once again I am hampered by OpenAI's decision to actively obscure their system prompts, but from poking at ChatGPT I believe their latest search tool has a shape like search(query, recency, domains) rather than encouraging a site: operator directly.
In a follow-up on August 18th Promptwatch reported that ChatGPT appeared to have greatly reduced the likelihood of Reddit being used in those searches. My own attempts to ascertain if the system prompt has been updated to discourage Reddit sourcing have been unsuccessful - the most thorough leaked system prompt collection I know of doesn't yet show any relevant changes.
Mojo🔥 is now open source (via) The Mojo programming language has been promising an open source release since May 2023. Last week they shipped their 1.0 and today they have followed through on that original promise, releasing the compiler and toolchain under an Apache 2 license.
When Mojo first launched the stated goal was to produce a superset of Python, so existing Python code could be used to bootstrap their own ecosystem. That plan changed around August 2025:
Mojo may or may not evolve into a full superset of Python, and it’s okay if it doesn’t.
We’re encouraged by how well AI-assisted coding tools already help migrate Python to Mojo today, and we’re confident that future tooling and ecosystem maturity will make this evolution even smoother.
Today Mojo is its own language, optimized to make GPU programming as painless as possible using syntax inspired by Python, if not 100% compatible with existing code.
Qwen 3.8 27B scores 52 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (via) That's the same score as GPT-5.6 Luna (max), and just one point behind GLM-5.2 (max) and DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) - that GLM is 753B and that DeepSeek is 1.7T parameters, and Luna is size unknown but presumably a whole lot bigger than 27B.
Qwen 3.8 27B is a truly astonishing model.
We Tracked a Shipment of Rare Books. It Ended at an Amazon AI Training Facility. Excellent piece of reporting from 404 Media. For a while now there have been stories of book dealers receiving orders for large volumes of books from apparently price-insensitive anonymous customers, widely suspected to be companies looking to scan them for AI training (see my previous coverage of Anthropic's book scanning from June 2025.)
404 Media investigated with an AirTag!
In July, one bookseller told me they received a very large order of around 1,000 books on Biblio, one of these marketplaces. The seller agreed to put an Apple AirTag provided by 404 Media in one of the books included in this order so we could see where the book was going. And by extension, which company, AI or otherwise, was behind this massive order.
The book ended up delivered to the VGT3 corner of the LAS8 Amazon facility in the north east of Las Vegas, where the entrance carried this on-the-nose logo of a dinosaur with a book!
Photo credit: 404 Media
Online forum discussions between Amazon workers confirmed that VGT3 destructively scans large volumes of books.
Don’t classify. Hallucinate! I still have quite a bit of older content on my blog that I never got round to tagging. My blog has 1,856 tags - likely too many to feed to an LLM in one go and say "which of these tags match the following content".
Doug Turnbull has a neat solution. Tell the model to output tags without any details of the existing vocabulary, then use vector embeddings against the existing corpus to find the concrete tags that are closest to the ones the model imagined might fit!
His example prompt suggests including an example of the shape of your tags to help the model make a more useful guess:
Your task is to create novel, never seen before, furniture, home goods, or hardware classification that best fit a search query.
Product classifications might look like:
Furniture / Living Room Furniture / Coffee Tables & End Tables / Coffee Tables
Décor & Pillows / Decorative Pillows & Blankets / Throw Pillows
Furniture / Bedroom Furniture / Dressers & Chests
Kitchen & Tabletop / Kitchen Organization / Food Storage & Canisters
School Furniture and Supplies / School Furniture / School Chairs & Seating / Stackable Chairs
Baby & Kids / Toddler & Kids Bedroom Furniture / Kids Beds
Here's the query to generate classifications for:
brown coffee table
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (on OpenRouter). The latest DeepSeek Pro model is now available, via API only. I had to link to OpenRouter because DeepSeek don't have any obvious announcement page for their new model.
I haven't been able to confirm if they plan to release the open weights, but given the weights are available for both April's deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4-Pro and July's deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 it seems likely. Update: the weights are now available on Hugging Face, 1.7T parameters, 893 GB.
Interestingly I got very different looking pelicans for the three different reasoning levels of low, medium, and high. I've not noticed this kind of difference from any other model:
Low:
Medium:
High:
In terms of benchmarks... as far as I can tell those were released to the Official DeepSeek WeChat Group, then copied and pasted into a post on Reddit which was deleted by the moderators for being "low-effort", then copied into this ASCII-art table on Hacker News.
There are no lossless transformations of natural-language text. Sophie Alpert shares her "internal policy on acceptable use of AI writing by engineers". It's a short read (supporting its own recommendations) and really good.
If you chose to have LLMs help massage your writing the following rule seems crucial to me:
You must stand behind every idea and every sentence in your docs. It is your responsibility to make sure that the entire document is representative of your own thoughts before you share it. If a reviewer asks, “What did you mean by this line?”, it’s not acceptable to reply with “Oh sorry, AI wrote that, just ignore it.” You will confuse your readers (and waste their time) if you present them things that are not genuinely representative of your thoughts.
The "no lossless transformations" idea from the post title is expanded on here:
There are no lossless transformations of natural-language text — every rewrite and rephrase changes the meaning of your writing, and if this is done by an entity that doesn’t have the most detailed mental representation of what you personally were trying to communicate, information will be lost.