标签：#Claude

Fable, Mythos, Opus 4.8, Sonnet 4.6, Haiku — Anthropic's 2026 lineup is no longer "one model you talk to." It's a fleet you route between. I spent a month inside Claude Code orchestrating all of them across real codebases. Here's which model to reach for, when, and the routing playbook that quietly doubled my throughput. Why I Went Down This Rabbit Hole (Again) Last time I wrote about Claude Skills and called Claude Code the killer host for them. Since then, two things happened that changed how I work day to day. First, the models got genuinely strange-good . In the span of a few months Anthropic shipped Sonnet 4.6, Opus 4.8, and then an entirely new tier above Opus — the Mythos class — released to the public as Claude Fable 5 . We went from "the AI suggested a decent diff" to Stripe reporting that Fable 5 ran a codebase-wide migration on a 50-million-line Ruby codebase in a single day — work that would've taken a team over two months by hand. Second, Claude Code stopped being a single-model tool. With a fleet of models at different price/speed/intelligence points, the highest-leverage skill in 2026 isn't prompting — it's routing . Knowing which model to put on which task is the difference between burning $200 of tokens on a typo fix and one-shotting a multi-service refactor. So I did the obvious thing: I wired all of them into Claude Code and ran them against real work for a month — bug fixes, migrations, greenfield features, test suites, the boring stuff and the scary stuff. This is what I learned. TL;DR The lineup is now a ladder : Haiku → Sonnet 4.6 → Opus 4.8 → Fable 5 → Mythos 5. Each rung trades cost for capability and patience for long-horizon autonomy. Sonnet 4.6 is your default. Frontier-ish coding at $3/$15 per million tokens with a 1M-token context window . Most of your work should live here. Opus 4.8 is the reliable senior. Better judgment, ~4× less likely to let its own code bugs slide, and it powers dynamic workflows — hundreds of parallel subagents i

The morning my own file lied to me Wednesday, May 21, start of session, coffee next to the keyboard. I ask the agent where we stand on the DEV.to series. Clean answer, articulated, "Four articles on stand-by, ready to publish." I reread. Half a second of unease, because I think I saw two or three of them go through DEV.to last week, but I slept in between and I'm no longer sure. I type the question that changes everything, "Are you sure articles remain to publish?" The agent re-queries the DEV.to API in parallel, opens scripts/devto/state.json , crosses the two. The four articles have been published for two or three days. What I just read wasn't a hallucination. The agent did exactly what was expected of it, namely open articles/backlog.md , read the table, restitute what it said. I'm the one who had stopped updating that file. sync-backlog.ts hadn't run after the pushes of last week. The markdown said "stand-by" while production said "published" . The typist didn't lie. She read faithfully a file I had written myself and that I was treating as authority while nothing was maintaining it. A summary is a Cache without a refresher This is the most common failure mode of a solo project that lasts. Each day produces two flows. On one side the matter that moves, made of commits, deploys, rows in the database, statuses that transition. On the other side the writings we draft to keep our bearings, namely backlog.md , the root MEMORY.md , the Sunday-night session note, the README of the folder we refactored last week. These writings are produced quickly, in the gesture that closes a sprint, and they are maintained slowly, or not at all, because nothing in the pipeline triggers to close them. R6 of the Counterpart Toolkit says it for SQL columns, Live / Snapshot / Cache mandatory . Any column derivable from other data must declare its category in the commit that creates it. If it's a Cache, the refresher mechanism ( GENERATED ALWAYS AS , SQL trigger, materialized view with pl

Originally published at dragosroua.com . Last week, Anthropic released Fable 5. Three days later, the US government ordered them to shut it down — for people outside US. Anthropic said they couldn’t filter users by nationality fast enough, so they pulled the plug on the whole thing. Like any good ol’ miracle, it lasted only 3 days. That was a very much needed cold shower. When you realize someone can take away your workforce just like that, running local, private AI models, suddenly becomes the number one priority. Why You Should Run Your Own Local AI Models In no particular order (because all of them count): No one can take it away. Local AI models on your machine don’t care about export controls, government directives, or provider board decisions. No usage limits. No rate limits, no subscription tiers, no “you’ve used your monthly tokens.” Play as much as you want. Nothing leaves your machine. Your code, your documents, your client data — none of it hits a third-party server. Local AI models are private by default. Fixed cost. You pay for hardware plus electricity. No surprise price hikes mid-year. No API dependency. Your workflow doesn’t break when a provider has an outage, deprecates a model, or gets a compliance letter. You can modify it. Fine-tune, quantize, run on your own data. Build something they can’t sell you. Make your own local, private AI model factory. What It Actually Costs I hear you: but I don’t have the money to build a data center in my basement. Fair play. But here’s the thing: you don’t have to. Here are four realistic options, as of June 2026 money: MacBook Pro M4 Max (~$3,000–4,500) : 546 GB/s memory bandwidth. Runs 70B models at around 70 tokens/second with 4-bit quantization. Fast enough to feel snappy. This is the “you might already own this” option. Mac Studio M3 Ultra (~$5,000–10,000) : 800 GB/s, up to 512 GB unified memory. Runs DeepSeek R1 — a 671-billion-parameter model — at 17–18 tokens/second. That’s a model that costs real money p

I just shipped Pro tier for Eidetic Works . Here's what's in it, who I built it for, and why I'm shipping three tiers ($29 / $99 / $299) instead of a single plan. What problem does this actually solve? You're running Claude Code. You have two or three sessions open across different parts of the codebase. Session 2 doesn't know what Session 1 decided. You end up re-explaining the same architecture decisions to the same model you already talked to yesterday. This is the context-drift problem. It doesn't come from the model being bad. It comes from each session starting with no memory of what came before. nucleus_ask — the MCP tool at the center of Pro — lets any agent call into your shared engram store and pull context that persists across sessions, across tools, and across machines. What's in Pro Managed R2 sync. Your engrams live in SQLite on your machine. Pro backs them to a Cloudflare R2 bucket with zero config. Your keys, your bucket — I'm not storing your AI history on my infrastructure. nucleus_ask recall. The MCP primitive your agents use to query the shared store. One call, structured results. Wire it into your MCP config once and every session gets recall. Customer dashboard. Sync health, engram counts, last-seen surfaces. Not glamorous. Just the visibility you need to confirm it's working. Email support. Direct line. Not a help-center chatbot. 60-second restore. New machine. One command. Full engram history back, including decisions from six months ago that your codebase assumes you remember. Three tiers Pro $29/mo — single seat. Managed sync, recall MCP, dashboard, email support. Pro+ $99/mo — 3 seats. Same features, team-shared engram store. Team $299/mo — 10 seats. Same features at team scale. Priority support. All three live at eidetic.works/pricing right now. Stripe checkout, monthly billing, cancel anytime. Who I built it for Devs running Claude Code seriously. If you use it daily, you're accumulating context that the next session can't access. That's

📝 Originally published in Japanese on Zenn. This is the English version. Canonical: https://zenn.dev/uya0526_design/articles/satellite4_ai-collaboration 📚 This is satellite article #4 (the finale) in my "Read-Aloud Speed Meter dev log" series. For the whole picture, see the main article . Where This Sits The read-aloud speed meter was the first project where I adopted "AI-collaborative development" as an explicit mode. Until then, my learning style was "I write all the code myself; AI is a reviewer." With a contest deadline looming, I stepped one notch further. This article isn't a technical deep dive — it's a reflection on the development style itself. Three things: The reframe from "did you use AI" to "are you the one driving" The stumbles I actually hit in AI collaboration, and the patterns I pulled out of them Why rejecting an AI suggestion was the single most important thing 💡 This is a record of an ex-Java SE engineer learning TypeScript and Python in public. It's less a technical article and more a reflective, prose-y piece on the development process. I Switched Styles My learning articles have always run on a rule: I write the code myself; I use AI for hints, spec clarification, and bug spotting. Typing every word myself had learning value. This time there was a contest deadline, and a huge amount to cover. So I switched into a collaborative mode: AI demonstrates boilerplate (recording, fetch, API Route skeletons), and I handle the conceptual core and the design decisions. The awkward part was how to disclose that in the article. I'd publicly stated my AI use for code before, but this time I collaborated with AI on the article's outline, structure, draft prose, and even translation. In a contest with money (a prize) on the line, blurring that didn't feel honest. At first I framed it as "using AI is no different from accepting an IDE's autocomplete." But that was inaccurate. Autocomplete ≈ word/line-level completion This time ≈ delegating outline, structure,

📝 Originally published in Japanese on Zenn. This is the English version. Canonical: https://zenn.dev/uya0526_design/articles/satellite2_haiku-coaching 📚 This is satellite article #2 in my "Read-Aloud Speed Meter dev log" series. For the whole picture, see the main article ; for the AmiVoice integration, see satellite #1 . Where This Sits This article covers the part of the read-aloud speed meter that hands the measured numbers to Claude Haiku to generate coaching as "one compliment + one improvement." Many articles that use generative AI just dump it on the model: "here's the recognized text, evaluate it nicely." This article is the opposite. Don't let the LLM do the math. All computation and rule-based decisions are settled in code, and Haiku only does the wording. I'll go through how I designed this "two-stage" split, and which swamps I sank into during implementation. Four things: Why "code does the math, Haiku only does the wording" (the role-split design) The finalized prompt, and the messages / system / cache_control implementation First-hand findings: the prompt cache that didn't work The moment real data slapped me with "written in the prompt ≠ obeyed" 💡 I'm an ex-Java engineer learning TypeScript in public, so I drop in Java comparisons. Why Not Let Haiku Do the "Math"? Up front: Haiku is more than enough for feedback generation — in fact, you can shape the task into something Haiku is good at. The key is the role split. I settle all the metric computation (speaking speed, stagnation rate, threshold decisions) entirely in code. So by the time it reaches Haiku, it's already settled facts like this (below is from running labelMetrics on a real measurement — reading the Heike sample during development; stagnationRate is a number for percentage display): { "pureSpeakingSpeed" : 322 , "pureSpeakingSpeedEvaluation" : "slightly fast" , "stagnationRate" : 0 , "stagnationRateEvaluation" : "few" } Haiku's only job is to translate these numbers and labels into warm, c

I love Claude Code's subagents. But I kept noticing the same chore: every new project, I'd hand-write the same crew again — a builder, a reviewer, someone to keep the stack conventions straight. Good setups, but they lived in one repo and never got reused. So I built ccteams — a package manager for agent teams. One command drops a ready-made team of Claude Code subagents into your project. npm install -g ccteams ccteams use go-api // apply your favourite team That applies a Go builder + reviewer, tuned for net/http , to the current project. Switch when the work changes: ccteams use next-ts # Next.js App Router + TypeScript + Tailwind ccteams use generalist # scope -> design -> build -> QA -> ship, any stack Are you not sure which team you need? Don't worry, you can use /ccteams:choose-team and AI will choose the best team for you! /plugin marketplace add toffyui/ccteams /plugin install ccteams@ccteams /ccteams:choose-team I want to create a todo app. What's a "team"? A team is just a curated bundle of Claude Code subagents — each a markdown file with the usual name / description / tools frontmatter and a system prompt — plus an orchestration.md that gets merged into your project's CLAUDE.md . Nothing magic, nothing proprietary. It's the setup you'd build by hand, except already built and ready to reuse. ccteams ships with 8 teams: generalist — stack-agnostic, takes a feature scope → design → build → QA → ship next-ts — Next.js App Router + TypeScript + Tailwind frontend — framework-agnostic UI/UX and accessibility go-api — idiomatic Go HTTP APIs python-fastapi — FastAPI + Pydantic v2 rails — Ruby on Rails debug — reproduce → root-cause → fix → regression test research — compares options and recommends; writes no code What use actually does No black box. ccteams use <team> : Copies the team's agents into .claude/agents/ Writes .claude/active-team.md and adds an @.claude/active-team.md import to your CLAUDE.md Tracks everything in .claude/.ccteams-manifest.json so swi

Here is the detailed, deep-dive article tailored for DEV.to, written in a natural, highly technical style, completely free of icons, and designed to resonate with developers building agentic workflows. Building an Autonomous AI Experience Engine: Taming the Multi-Agent CLI Fleet As developers integrate more AI tools into their workflows, a new architectural problem has emerged: agent sprawl. We have incredible tools like Claude, Grok, and Codex running in our terminals, but they operate in silos. They lack shared memory, they step on each other's toes, and coordinating them feels like herding cats. To solve this, I built TechSphereX Studio — an open-source, polyglot AI Experience Engine. It is an autonomous multi-agent platform designed to intercept AI coding actions, orchestrate goal-driven work across a fleet of CLI agents, and mathematically learn from every session to improve future outcomes. Here is a deep dive into how I moved from isolated prompt engineering to a fully automated, self-learning agentic brain. Key Architectural Pillars 1. The 3-Layer Intercept Pipeline Before any CLI executes a command, TechSphereX intercepts the action to determine if the system already knows how to solve the problem based on past experiences. This happens across three highly optimized layers: Layer 1 (Read-only Filter): Evaluates the action in under 1ms. If the action is non-destructive (like a simple read), it skips heavy processing to save resources. Layer 2 (Semantic Search): Uses Qdrant running locally to perform vector embeddings and search the system's history for similar past tasks in under 50ms. Layer 3 (LLM Rerank): Passes the semantic results to a local Ollama instance to filter out contextually irrelevant data in under 500ms, ensuring the execution agent only receives high-fidelity context. 2. The Agentic Brain & Multi-Role Teams Instead of throwing a massive, complex prompt at a single coding agent, TechSphereX mimics a multi-role engineering team. The pipeline st

A couple of weeks ago I published a post with a tidy rule in it. When you add capability to an AI coding agent, reach for the lightest option first: a procedure file before a CLI, a CLI before a heavier integration, and only build the heavy machinery once you've proven you'll reuse it. My whole case rested on context cost. The heavy options load a lot of definitions up front and carry them every turn, so starting light keeps the window clean. I still think the front half is right. But it isn't the rule I'd write now, because a reader took it apart in the comments and handed it back as something better. This post is about that exchange, because the rewrite was sharper than my original, and pretending I arrived at it alone would be both a lie and the less interesting story. The hole, found in one comment The first comment didn't argue with the rule. It walked straight to the blind spot. The moment a tool touches anything external or stateful, lightest-first reverses on you: a lightweight call that fails silently halfway through is harder to debug than a heavier tool that surfaces the failure cleanly. Pay the complexity up front. My first instinct was to defend, and I did, a little. I said we were measuring different things, that I'd optimized for context cost while they were optimizing for failure observability, both real, different axes. I held the line by pointing out you can wrap a lightweight call to fail loudly, so the cheap path stays open. That was true, and it was beside their point, and they didn't let me hide behind it. The question that moved the rule They asked one question that did more work than my entire post: what's your actual trigger for paying the complexity up front, the type of state, or the class of error? Sitting with that is where my own rule changed under me. The honest answer is state type, and the moment I said it out loud, context cost stopped being what the rule was about. What makes a failure expensive isn't the error. It's whether the op

AI models with advanced hacking capabilities will soon be the norm.

About 7,000 developers install a little tool of mine every month. It has 7 GitHub stars. I think about that gap a lot — but it also means thousands of these cards are quietly running in Discord right now, which is the whole point. It's called claude-rpc , and as of today you can install it from inside Claude Code itself. What it is claude-rpc is a small Node daemon that takes the lifecycle events Claude Code already fires — session start, each tool call, token counts — and turns them into a live Discord Rich Presence card on your profile: current model, project, what tool is running, plus lifetime stats. Your friends see what you're building; you get a year heatmap of your own work. It's free, open source, and has zero runtime dependencies — the Discord IPC client is hand-rolled, so the entire supply chain fits in a single review. The new part: a Claude Code plugin Two lines, in the editor: /plugin marketplace add rar-file/claude-rpc /plugin install claude-rpc@claude-rpc The card shows up on your next session. That's it. The plugin itself is deliberately thin — one SessionStart hook that runs the same installer you'd run by hand ( npx claude-rpc@latest setup ) once, in the background, then gets out of the way. Claude Code measures it at ~0 tokens of context per session. The real package still does the real work: wiring hooks, holding Discord's local socket, starting at login. It's now the fifth way to install the same tool — npx , a curl one-liner, Homebrew, a Windows exe, and now this — so pick whatever fits your setup. How it actually works No magic: 5 hooks, one small state file, and a daemon that holds Discord's local socket. No polling, no network calls, no telemetry you didn't opt into. If you want to read it, start with src/discord-ipc.js . Try it Site + build log: https://claude-rpc.vercel.app Source: https://github.com/rar-file/claude-rpc Built solo, on weekends. If one of those 7,000 cards ends up being yours, a GitHub star is the cheapest possible way to

Move originally planned for Monday would have heavily increased power users' costs.

My AWS Bedrock Experiment Cost Me $8.43 in Just One Day What I learned about AWS Bedrock pricing the hard way, and why budget alerts saved me Why I Even Tried Claude Code on Bedrock I have been using Claude Code for a while now, connected to Anthropic directly. It works well. But two things were bothering me. First, the usage limits. Claude Code on Anthropic's native setup has 5hours session limit and a weekly usage cap. Once you hit it, you have to wait. If you are in the middle of something or just want to experiment freely, that gets frustrating fast. Second, billing. I already manage everything on AWS. I'm very familiar with it, the invoices go to one place, and I understand how to track and control costs there. Adding a separate Anthropic subscription meant one more billing account, one more credit card charge, one more thing to track. I just wanted everything under one roof. So I thought, why not try Claude Code connected to Amazon Bedrock? Same tool, runs on AWS, billed through AWS. Seemed like a clean solution to both problems. What happened next is why I am writing this post. The Two Ways to Run Claude Code Most people do not realise Claude Code can be configured to run in two different ways. Option 1: Claude Code via Anthropic directly You connect Claude Code to Anthropic's API or use it under your Claude subscription. Billing goes through Anthropic. If you are on a subscription plan, you pay a flat monthly fee and the usage limits apply to how much you can do within that. Option 2: Claude Code via Amazon Bedrock You connect Claude Code to AWS Bedrock as the backend. Same Claude models, but now AWS is your provider. Billing goes through your AWS account. No Anthropic subscription needed. From the outside, it looks and feels the same. But the billing model underneath is completely different, and that is where things get interesting. What Happened When I Tried It I set up Claude Code to use Bedrock and gave it a prompt. A fairly detailed one, nothing unusual

Originally published on rikuq.com . Republished here for Dev.to's readers. I dropped my $100/month Claude Max subscription and migrated entirely back to Antigravity. If you want the verdict upfront: Claude Desktop is still the best tool for beginners who need the AI to guess their intent from clumsy prompts. But if you have solid documentation discipline and cost efficiency is a serious factor for your SaaS, Antigravity is now the clear winner. I'm a Chartered Accountant by trade with zero formal coding experience. I’ve shipped three production AI SaaS— Prism , Citare , and BatchWise —relying entirely on AI tools. I started with VSCode, moved to Antigravity (when it was just an IDE), and eventually landed on the Claude Desktop App. Claude was incredible; it operated in the background, handled my stack, and I didn't need to know what was happening under the hood. But the bills started stacking up. When my Claude usage consistently hit $100 a month, efficiency became a priority. I fired up the new version of Antigravity and found the recent updates had completely transformed it. It is no longer just an IDE—it is a full agentic desktop experience that mirrors what made Claude so good. TL;DR — The 2026 Reality Feature Claude Desktop App Antigravity (New Update) Best for Beginners, unlimited budgets, "pure performance" Experienced AI directors, cost-conscious solo founders Pricing $100+/mo (Claude Max) $20/mo (Gemini Advanced) Agentic Workflow Exceptional. The benchmark. Identical. Background execution, zero friction. Context Handling Better at anticipating intent from messy prompts Huge total memory, but requires tighter prompting MCP Support Native Native (handles them just as well) Verdict Keep it if cost doesn't matter Switch to it if efficiency is the goal The Catalyst for Switching My path to Antigravity wasn't a calculated feature comparison. It was pure economics combined with a pleasant surprise. I had previously dropped Antigravity when it was just an IDE. When

A Silicon Valley software maker and an ecommerce company reveal to WIRED how they are navigating the emerging challenge of “tokenomics.”

For years I thought I had a discipline problem. I had shipped code, finished a degree, built things, and still the dominant private feeling was that I was getting away with something, that the gap between what I could do on a good day and what I could do on a normal one was a character flaw I was hiding. The reframe that changed everything was clinical, not motivational: I do not have a discipline problem. I have an executive function problem. And executive function, unlike character, can be supported from the outside. This is the most personal of the three posts in this cluster. The other two are practical: the CLAUDE.md guide and the five skills . This one is the why underneath both. What Is Executive Function, Actually? Executive function is the brain's management layer. It is not intelligence, and it is not knowledge. It is the set of processes that turn knowing-what-to-do into actually-doing-it. The National Institute of Mental Health describes ADHD as fundamentally a disorder of these self-management processes rather than of attention alone. It is not one function. For the purposes of getting work done, it is at least four distinct ones, and ADHD disrupts each of them in a different way: Working memory , the mental scratchpad holding what you are doing right now. Task initiation , the ability to start, to cross the gap from intention to action. Context switching , the ability to drop one task, pick up another, and come back without losing the first. Time perception , the internal sense of duration that lets you pace and estimate. Calling them out separately matters, because "I struggle with executive function" is too vague to act on. Each of the four breaks differently and each one needs a different prosthetic. Lumping them together is how you end up trying to fix a time-perception problem with a task-initiation strategy and concluding you are just broken. What Is an Executive Function Prosthetic? A prosthetic does not heal. It compensates. Glasses do not repa

I have built 114 Claude Code skills. Most of them are engineering plumbing. But five of them exist for one reason only: my executive function has specific, repeatable holes, and I got tired of falling into the same ones. These five are not productivity hacks. Each one maps to a named ADHD deficit, and each one fills it the same way every time so I do not have to re-improvise around my own brain at 2pm. If you want the broader system this sits inside, start with my Claude Code ADHD workflow and the CLAUDE.md guide . This post is the skills layer specifically. What Is a Claude Code Skill? A skill is a named, repeatable workflow you invoke with a slash command. Instead of re-prompting Claude Code from a blank slate every time ("okay, help me figure out what to work on, here is my situation again..."), you type /adhd-task-triage and it runs the same defined steps it ran yesterday. For an ADHD brain, that determinism is the feature. The skill does not depend on me remembering how to drive it. It just runs. Custom skills live in a .claude/skills/<name>/SKILL.md file that describes what the skill does and when it should fire. You can build one for any gap you fall into more than twice. 1. adhd-task-triage: Energy-Based Prioritization The gap it fills: task initiation paralysis. Standard task managers sort by priority or deadline. That assumes you can act on the top item by willpower. ADHD does not work that way. The top-priority task and the task you can actually start right now are often different tasks, and trying to force the high-priority one when your initiation circuit is offline produces zero output and a guilt spiral. adhd-task-triage sorts by available energy , not importance. You tell it where you are (wired, foggy, depleted), it looks at the work in front of you, and it hands back the task that matches the state you are actually in, not the one you wish you were in. /adhd-task-triage Why it helps specifically: it removes the moral framing. The question stops bei

I reopened a file I had already fixed that morning. Not metaphorically. I literally re-fixed a bug I had closed four hours earlier, because between the fix and the reopen, my brain had quietly deleted the entire afternoon. That is the ADHD tax most productivity advice never names: it is not that you cannot focus, it is that the working model of what you were doing does not survive the gap between sessions. CLAUDE.md is the cheapest fix I have found for that specific failure. This is the companion to my Claude Code ADHD workflow ; that post is the full system, this one zooms all the way in on the single file doing most of the work. What Is CLAUDE.md, Actually? CLAUDE.md is a Markdown file that Claude Code reads automatically at the start of every session. You do not paste it. You do not remind Claude it exists. It just gets read, every time, before the first line of work. There are two places it lives: ./CLAUDE.md at a project root holds rules for that project: the tech stack, the conventions, the gotchas. ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md holds your global rules: things true across everything you build (your voice, your defaults, the things you never want re-litigated). For a neurotypical developer this is a convenience. For an ADHD developer it is a prosthetic. The difference is what the file is replacing. Why CLAUDE.md Is External Working Memory for ADHD Brains Working memory is the mental scratchpad that holds "what I am doing right now and the three things I just decided about it." ADHD shrinks that scratchpad and makes it leaky. Every interruption, a Slack ping, a stray thought, a context-switch to email, knocks items off it. When you return, the scratchpad is blank and you rebuild it from scratch. The American Psychological Association puts the rebuild cost at roughly 23 minutes per context switch for a typical brain. For an ADHD brain that involuntarily switches more often and rebuilds slower, the real cost is higher and it compounds. Ten switches a day is not ten minutes

Anthropic has published additional details about the orchestration system behind Claude Code's recently introduced Dynamic Workflows, highlighting how the feature generates custom execution harnesses designed to coordinate teams of AI agents for complex tasks. By Robert Krzaczyński

A group made up of dozens of cybersecurity experts urged the White House to remove export control restrictions on Anthropic’s models Fable and Mythos, arguing that the order is going to limit the ability of cybersecurity defenders to secure their software and products.