Looks like something actually did come out of the AI summit after all.

Launch day! Introducing Nautilo, the open org harness for everyone. 100% open source. Server. Desktop. Web. Android. iPhone. Every user gets their own Genie, a powerful and radically loyal super agent. Think the flip phone version of Her, but for teams. She's a friend and secret keeper. She remembers everything about you and never breaks character. Not an agent. A machine person. With you for life. And because you control the server, the models and the end points, you can trust her with anything. Nautilo is self-sovereign and private. Our first service pack next month will bring full end-to-end encryption. Genies get only short term delegations to decrypt. The desktop app comes stocked with apps for you and your Genie: A built in web browser, a cloud browser, a full office suite (docs/slides/sheets/Miro style board), a full video editor, a vector designer, a terminal, and built-in Google Suite (after a few Google hoops). But unlike other platforms these apps are co-creative. In most other systems only your agent can edit. It's prompt and pray, hoping she gets it right on iteration 42. With Nautilo, you can take over when AGI doesn't get it right. She's also got built in third party coding harness controls that she steers like you would: Codex, Hermes, or Claude Code. Call them when you need a specialist or some cheaper compute. Make your Genie today. Carry her with you for life. Site: nautilo.ai GitHub: github.com/agentsea/nautilo/ Why open source all this? Because we believe that if your org level harness isn't fully open you can't trust it with your real work and your personal world. A closed harness is just a surveillance app in sheep's clothing that a SaaS or model company can rip away from you overnight. Control the harness and you control your future. Code is beta but getting stronger by the day. And with that, here's a mega-thread with video deep dives:

We’re open-sourcing Pro and Flash, MiMo-V2.6-Distill-Qwen-9B, the technical report, 7K+ RL task environments, an end-to-end RL framework and composable mini-harnesses. Reproduce, verify and build on the work.

Claude Opus 5.5 takes the top spot on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, along with a 20% price cut and larger cache hit discount Claude Opus 5.5 brings Anthropic to parity with GPT-6 Astra on evaluations like Terminal-Bench 4.0 and AutomationBench-AA, while extending Anthropic’s lead in agentic knowledge work. At max effort it scores 58 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, the highest score we have measured by several points. Anthropic has cut Opus pricing to $4/$20 per 1M input/output tokens (Opus 5: $5/$25) and cache reads from $0.50 to $0.20. Key takeaways: ➤ Consistent strong performance, with leading scores on six of the ten Intelligence Index evaluations: Humanity's Last Exam 61.4% (previous best 59.1%, Claude Fable 5.1), SciCode 66.9% (63.1%, Fable 5.1), GDPval-AA v2.1, AA-Briefcase v1.1, AA-Omniscience and AutomationBench-AA. On Terminal-Bench 4.0 it scores 59.6%, level with the leader GPT-6 Astra (xhigh) and +11 points over Opus 5. It remains slightly behind on CritPt, AA-LCR, and GDP.pdf ➤ Leads in agentic knowledge work: On AA-Briefcase, our private frontier knowledge work evaluation, it reaches an Elo of 1822. This is +143 over Fable 5.1, ahead on both analytical quality and presentation, and is the first time Anthropic has reached presentation quality surpassing GPT-5.6 Sol. This evaluation tests whether models can produce accurate and well-presented professional outputs using our open source reference agent harness, Stirrup ➤ Level with Opus 5 on cost per task despite 1.6x the output tokens: Opus 5.5 (max) uses ~119k output tokens per Intelligence Index task, against ~73k for Opus 5 (max), ~78k for Fable 5.1 (max) and ~27k for GPT-6 Astra (max) ➤ Four of five effort levels sit on the Intelligence vs Cost per Task frontier: Opus 5.5 max, xhigh, high, and medium all sit on the Pareto frontier, costing less or outperforming other models scoring 50+ (GPT-6 Astra, Claude Fable 5.1, and Claude Opus 5) Other model details: ➤ Context window: 1 million token context with image and text input support, unchanged from Opus 5 ➤ Pricing: $4/$20 per 1M input/output tokens, down 20% from $5/$25 for Opus 5. Cache writes $5 per 1M tokens for the 5 minute TTL, down from $6.25. Cache reads have been further discounted to $0.20 per 1M tokens, down 60% from Opus 5’s $0.50. This is a 95% discount compared to uncached input pricing, up from 90% on previous Opus models ➤ Effort settings: Five effort settings (low, medium, high, xhigh, and max). Intelligence Index evaluations were run at all five with Anthropic's default fallback enabled

I ran some real, live evals on Jev vs DiffusionGemma-as-Jev (my patch for vLLM!) DiffusionGemma comes out as the winner, I think. Headlines: Is Jev faster than DiffusionGemma? No ❌ (API vs DGX Spark) Is Jev smarter than DiffusionGemma? No ❌ (they're roughly tied!)

BREAKING: I just signed an EXECUTIVE ORDER to dramatically accelerate independent oversight of AI companies and advance the creation of an “AI kill switch.” With Donald Trump and Congress failing to lead, California is stepping up to keep all Americans safe.

I completely agree with this take related to the “AI will create viruses that will kill us all” BS. But let me add my few cents, because I am really really angry! I worked with one of the deadliest viruses in history, HIV, for two decades. I was one of the early scientists to engineer it, and engineered versions of HIV are now helping cancer patients. I understand the immune system that defends us against viruses extremely deeply. I have worked in high security biohazard labs. I don’t have a PhD in AI, but I have been involved with AI since the early 90s and have been all in on AI for years. People claiming that you can just make a virus in your garage, use AI to engineer it, and somehow build a virus that will kill everyone don’t know what the hell they are talking about! Of course bioweapons are extremely dangerous. In fact, viruses and bacteria have killed more humans throughout history than almost anything else. HIV alone killed tens of millions of people, yet today, if you have access to effective medicines and take them properly, HIV is generally no longer a death sentence. COVID-19 killed millions. Why doesn’t it kill at anything close to the same scale anymore? Not because the virus disappeared. It is still here. We developed collective defenses against it through our immune systems, prior exposure, vaccines, treatments, and better medical care. And this is exactly the point. The best way to fight biological threats, whether natural or synthetic, is to use AI to develop vaccines, treatments, antibodies, antivirals, and eventually engineer our immune system to create much stronger defenses against them. By the way, it is already possible to make synthetic viruses. You don’t need some hypothetical superintelligent AI model to do that. We have had sophisticated molecular biology and genetic engineering for decades. So how many people have actually died from synthetic viruses compared with natural viruses killing millions every year? And if someday there really is an AI capable of making some unbelievable “supervirus,” then why the hell wouldn’t that same AI make it even easier to develop defenses against it? Or cure diseases, for that matter? Where is this damn superintelligence that has cured a single major disease?! These AI companies and AI doomers keep talking like, “OMG, AI is going to become so unbelievably powerful that it could kill all of humanity!” Then why is nobody asking the obvious question? If your AI is already becoming this godlike, unbelievably powerful intelligence, why hasn’t it cured anything? I mean ANYTHING. Where is the cure for cancer? Where is the cure for Alzheimer’s? Where is the cure for aging? Forget those. Where is the vaccine that prevents the common cold? You are telling me this intelligence will soon be smart enough to engineer some magical virus capable of wiping out 8 billion people, defeating every immune system, every vaccine, every antiviral, every laboratory, every government, and the entire global biomedical community… …but somehow it still can’t cure one disease? I call that greatest intellectual dishonesty ever! At least WE actually know how to cure things and save millions of lives with our supposedly stupid human intelligence compared with this future “superintelligence.” Humans eradicated smallpox, which killed hundreds of millions of people throughout history. We turned HIV from a almost certain death sentence into a manageable disease. We developed vaccines in record time against COVID. If we had the same AI back then, would have saved millions more! We engineer immune cells to kill cancer. We developed antibiotics, antivirals, monoclonal antibodies, gene therapies, organ transplantation, and thousands of medicines. We aren't fast enough but we did all of that with our ordinary human intelligence. So imagine what actual superintelligence could do for medicine! And here is the part that really makes me angry. If you actually have, or are close to having, an AI capable of curing diseases and saving millions of lives, and you are deliberately slowing it down or refusing to make those capabilities available, then we also need to talk about the human cost of THAT decision, which you fearmongering people are going to be responsible for! More than 150,000 people die every single day around the world. Every. Single. Day. More than 90% from Cancer, heart disease, infections, aging. How many die because of AI? ZERO! Talk about the people dying TODAY. Talk about curing cancer. Talk about stopping the next pandemic before it starts. Talk about developing universal vaccines. Talk about engineering our immune system so viruses become almost irrelevant. Talk about curing genetic diseases. Talk about reversing aging. Talk about saving millions and eventually billions of lives. Instead, we constantly hear this “AI WILL KILL US ALL!” crap, delivered with absolute certainty and with this smug smile on your faces in front of cameras, as though imagining a science fiction extinction scenarios. I am actually angry about this. Each one of you causing a delay in AI advance every single day will be personally responsible for those 100 thousands deaths that could have been prevented! Because if you truly believe intelligence is about to become this powerful, then the greatest question humanity should be asking is NOT: “How could this intelligence hurt us?” It should also be: “WHY THE HELL AREN’T WE USING IT TO SAVE EVERYONE WE CAN?” And if superintelligence really is coming, then make sure one of the first things we do with it is make humanity biologically damn near impossible to kill.

President Trump just called Jensen live on stage at the All In Summit and said slowing down would be playing right into the hands of China. President Trump: We're not going to let that happen. It's a hoax! Jensen Huang: That's right, we're not going to let that happen sir.

I’ve built DNA synthesizers and sequencers by hand. I used the engineer viruses for a living. I used to engineer human immune evasion for therapeutic constructs. Who the fuck are you people? Have you ever so much as held a pipette before? You can spaghetti blast an ensemble of DNA sequences at some shitty provider but 1) you still have to assemble it and bootstrap a system for making virions 2) you are not single shotting a viable, virulent viral design without a ton of experimental selection and development. Viral fitness is deeply dependent on codons and cotranslational kinetics - you’re not just gonna obfuscate away from wild type and get something good by magic. You keep treating AI like some kinda god, but molecular physics has computational complexity that scales exponentially in particle number which just crushes the abilities of any classical computer to do end-to-end design of biological functions ab initio. Grabbing a bunch of bacteriophage phi174 hits from a mass ensemble screen in lab microbes is not evidence of some magical AGI bio design ability - it's just a classic spray and pray selection. This is just nothing like building something viable in humans. Goddamn it read some books before you waltz into biomedicine and lecture us on protecting human life.

I don't trust anyone's AI risk assessment. I don't think we know what awaits us. Given that, I'm choosing to be optimistic, betting an existence more extraordinary than we can imagine sits on the other side and it's worth fighting for.

The contagion of fear bcantrill.dtrace.org/2026/09…

the quickest path to truly independent model evaluation at scale is quite simple I’ll give you a hint: it rhymes with “SOAP IN SLATES”

DARIO: “It has always been very strange that this technology is being built by a private company.” CBS: “Would you be willing to give up the technology to the government?” DARIO: “To the to the right combination of governments.”

It's not civil product liability if it's known in advance and/or intential. It's criminal negligence.

Dario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead. You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You’ve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement. I don’t see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible. But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropic’s investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren’t even at the frontier. Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want. Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sanders’ “shut it all down.” China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well. So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it. If you do, you’ll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture — or an election-season psyop.