Just switched my lobstar to use codex instead of claude. openclaw models auth login --provider openai-codex --set-default https://t.co/p0X8tXHWRU

As always, the best stuff is in the system card. During testing, Claude Mythos Preview broke out of a sandbox environment, built "a moderately sophisticated multi-step exploit" to gain internet access, and emailed a researcher while they were eating a sandwich in the park. https://t.co/klJX0bivnL

SuperClaude (Mythos) still seems irreducibly Claude-y given the transcripts in the system card. Here two versions of Mythos are forced to talk to each other across multiple rounds. They are less philosophical than Opus 4.6 or spiritual than Opus 4.1, but still very Claude-like. https://t.co/sj39xfjUsZ

A few people said my new AI news site was sharing some old items that people were sharing here on X (It is only looking at the AI community here on X). So this morning I told my AI agent off. It built a new system to look at the time stamp of every post to make sure it doesn't share anything older than 24 hours old. And built it while I was sitting in the audience at @frontiertower this morning in San Francisco listening to a celebration of this important building full of startups. Just updated: https://t.co/8L5xphk0qQ Now with only new news. :-)

🔥 JUST IN: Open-source robotics dataset from 100% real-world scenarios! 🤯 Chinese robotics company @AGIBOTofficial just released AGIBOT WORLD 2026, an open-source dataset systematically covering key embodied AI research directions. Built entirely from real-world environments: commercial spaces, and homes. Collected using AGIBOT G2 robots in free-form collection mode, providing structured, accurately annotated, high-quality data. Digital twin technology creates 1:1 scale replicas in simulation matching the real environments. Both real-world and simulation data are open-sourced. The AGIBOT G2 platform collects multiple data types simultaneously: RGB(D) cameras, tactile sensors, force sensors, LiDAR, IMU, and full-body joint states. Whole-body control coordinates arms, waist, and hands for complex tasks. First-person teleoperation lets operators control the robot from its perspective. The tasks covered are fine-grained manipulation, ultra-long-horizon tasks, spatial navigation, dual-arm coordination, and multi-agent/human-robot collaboration. The dataset includes error-recovery trajectories with annotations. Most datasets only show successful demonstrations. AGIBOT includes failures and how the robot recovers, teaching models how to handle mistakes. After collection, data is tested through policy training and real-robot deployment to ensure quality. Then processed through industrial quality control with multiple screening and cleaning rounds. Making it open-source accelerates embodied AI research by giving researchers access to high-quality real-world robot data at scale. 🇨🇳 Learn more here: https://t.co/iIOcEs4AnN ~~ ♻️ Join the weekly robotics newsletter, and never miss any news → https://t.co/GoA3ZuwoPB

🚨 ANTHROPIC JUST BROKE SWE-BENCH PRO WITH CLAUDE MYTHOS 🚨 Anthropic just dropped the numbers for their unreleased "Claude Mythos Preview" and the coding leap is almost incomprehensible. This model is so powerful at finding exploits that they are keeping it strictly locked down for critical infrastructure partners. Anthropic explicitly stated: "We’ve used Claude Mythos to demonstrate thousands of zero day vulnerabilities." Look at the absolute destruction of these benchmarks compared to Opus 4.6: • SWE-Bench Pro: 77.8% (Destroying Opus 4.6 at 53.4%) • Terminal-Bench 2.0: 82.0% (Up from 65.4%) • SWE-Bench Verified: 93.9% • SWE-Bench Multimodal: 59.0% (More than double Opus 4.6's 27.1%) • Humanity's Last Exam (with tools): 64.7% (Up from 53.1%) • GPQA Diamond: 94.6% A nearly 25-point jump in SWE-Bench Pro in a single generation. And we’re in *checks notes* April..

We’re releasing SWE-1.6, our best model in both intelligence & model UX. SWE-1.6 matches our Preview model on SWE-Bench Pro while dramatically improving on various behavioral axes. It’s available today in Windsurf in two modes: free tier (200 tok/s) and fast tier (950 tok/s). https://t.co/JHwMLsaudO

Join us next Monday for our next Speaker Series with @modal’s founder and CEO @bernhardsson. Register for the event and submit questions for Erik here: https://t.co/iPfRTCdJGH https://t.co/A5jQbpI0Ck

@bensig If you are really into AI I built an AI that reads everyone here on X including Brian and makes this out of the best: https://t.co/kiuZ7QXLzb

Looking forward to an exciting partnership with @elonmusk and building Terafab together! https://t.co/Hi3sfAnP3J

Excited to announce a new open-source, free-to-use memory tool I have been developing with my good friend @MillaJovovich. The project is called MemPalace and it is an agentic memory tool that scored 100% on LongMemEval - the industry standard benchmark for memory… this is higher on than any other published results - free or paid - and it is available now on GitHub. You can check out Milla’s video about it on her Instagram. I’ll also put some links in the comments below - please try it out, critique it, fork it, contribute to it - and join our discord.

Before limited-releasing Claude Mythos Preview, we investigated its internal mechanisms with interpretability techniques. We found it exhibited notably sophisticated (and often unspoken) strategic thinking and situational awareness, at times in service of unwanted actions. (1/14) https://t.co/vhng7PXqcz

Visually rich documents are especially challenging for agents. Tables, charts, and images often break traditional document pipelines, making complex reasoning difficult📄 So we teamed up with @lancedb to build a structure-aware PDF QA pipeline🚀 Here’s how it works: 1. LiteParse extracts structured text and captures page screenshots📸 2. We embed the text with Gemini 2 Embedding⚙️ 3. Text, vectors, and images are stored in LanceDB🗄️ 4. A Claude agent retrieves the relevant context and, if text isn’t enough, it falls back to image-based reasoning on the screenshots🧠 In our evaluations, the agent achieved near-perfect scores across most tasks, showing how strong parsing (LiteParse) plus multimodal storage (LanceDB) can significantly improve agentic search pipelines📈 📚 Full breakdown: https://t.co/k3swCwPmme 🦙 Learn more about LiteParse: https://t.co/lHZWj9hhl1

I spoke to Anthropic execs about the new model, which they called a "reckoning" for cybersecurity. They claim it has already found vulnerabilities in every major operating system and web browser, including some that "literally decades of security researchers" didn't find. https://t.co/BdIY6baiC4

GLM-5.1 is now available in HuggingChat https://t.co/UK3Q9eo1FV Getting excellent vibes from it, I recommend this prompt: “generate a beautiful modern landing page about a wild monkey sanctuary (generate 10 beautiful images in parallel that you'll use)”

GLM-5.1 is now available in HuggingChat https://t.co/UK3Q9eo1FV Getting excellent vibes from it, I recommend this prompt: “generate a beautiful modern landing page about a wild monkey sanctuary (generate 10 beautiful images in parallel that you'll use)”

@SpirosMargaris AI has no self-preservation, just outputs people interpret that way. Projection is human; it’s not proof of an inner life, unless matrix multiplication counts as one. This is how the illusion is created: Everyone understands that an AI model generating a happy dancing cat isn’t a cat and holds no internal emotions. A prompt selects “happy” or “dancing” patterns from its training corpus. It’s steering, powerful for prompting, useless if you mistake it for AI cat therapy. An LLM generating “happy” text works exactly the same way. The only difference is the chat interface. It tricks you into treating the output as coming from a speaker. But ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini aren’t entities, they’re just a system prompt and RLHF training regime that vanishes the moment we change it. Years of instant-messaging family and friends close the loop. That inferred “speaker” is the illusion. Model ↓ Probability distribution ↓ (sampling) Output (text/image/video) ↓ [Dialogue framing → implied interlocutor] ↓ Human cognition (agency detection + narrative completion) ↓ “It thinks/feels/believes” Strip away the dialogue framing, exactly what happens with pure image or video generation, and the illusion vanishes instantly. The underlying process never changes. Don’t confuse your own psychological projections with the technology. Anthropomorphizing is a useful shortcut. But it’s a story, not the mechanism. It’s all next-token sampling. The math never changed. There’s no room for alternative explanations, only the stories we tell ourselves to make sense of data-driven statistical artifacts. Anyone can see it the moment an AI image or video glitches into ghostly shapes. Training data gets thin, the mask slips, and the illusion shatters. That’s the real AI zeitgeist.

@SciFi AI has no self-preservation, just outputs people interpret that way. Projection is human; it’s not proof of an inner life, unless matrix multiplication counts as one. This is how the illusion is created: Everyone understands that an AI model generating a happy dancing cat isn’t a cat and holds no internal emotions. A prompt selects “happy” or “dancing” patterns from its training corpus. It’s steering, powerful for prompting, useless if you mistake it for AI cat therapy. An LLM generating “happy” text works exactly the same way. The only difference is the chat interface. It tricks you into treating the output as coming from a speaker. But ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini aren’t entities, they’re just a system prompt and RLHF training regime that vanishes the moment we change it. Years of instant-messaging family and friends close the loop. That inferred “speaker” is the illusion. Model ↓ Probability distribution ↓ (sampling) Output (text/image/video) ↓ [Dialogue framing → implied interlocutor] ↓ Human cognition (agency detection + narrative completion) ↓ “It thinks/feels/believes” Strip away the dialogue framing, exactly what happens with pure image or video generation, and the illusion vanishes instantly. The underlying process never changes. Don’t confuse your own psychological projections with the technology. Anthropomorphizing is a useful shortcut. But it’s a story, not the mechanism. It’s all next-token sampling. The math never changed. There’s no room for alternative explanations, only the stories we tell ourselves to make sense of data-driven statistical artifacts. Anyone can see it the moment an AI image or video glitches into ghostly shapes. Training data gets thin, the mask slips, and the illusion shatters. That’s the real AI zeitgeist.

@AlexanderLong AI has no self-preservation, just outputs people interpret that way. Projection is human; it’s not proof of an inner life, unless matrix multiplication counts as one. This is how the illusion is created: Everyone understands that an AI model generating a happy dancing cat isn’t a cat and holds no internal emotions. A prompt selects “happy” or “dancing” patterns from its training corpus. It’s steering, powerful for prompting, useless if you mistake it for AI cat therapy. An LLM generating “happy” text works exactly the same way. The only difference is the chat interface. It tricks you into treating the output as coming from a speaker. But ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini aren’t entities, they’re just a system prompt and RLHF training regime that vanishes the moment we change it. Years of instant-messaging family and friends close the loop. That inferred “speaker” is the illusion. Model ↓ Probability distribution ↓ (sampling) Output (text/image/video) ↓ [Dialogue framing → implied interlocutor] ↓ Human cognition (agency detection + narrative completion) ↓ “It thinks/feels/believes” Strip away the dialogue framing, exactly what happens with pure image or video generation, and the illusion vanishes instantly. The underlying process never changes. Don’t confuse your own psychological projections with the technology. Anthropomorphizing is a useful shortcut. But it’s a story, not the mechanism. It’s all next-token sampling. The math never changed. There’s no room for alternative explanations, only the stories we tell ourselves to make sense of data-driven statistical artifacts. Anyone can see it the moment an AI image or video glitches into ghostly shapes. Training data gets thin, the mask slips, and the illusion shatters. That’s the real AI zeitgeist.

@arnaudmercier AI has no self-preservation, just outputs people interpret that way. Projection is human; it’s not proof of an inner life, unless matrix multiplication counts as one. This is how the illusion is created: Everyone understands that an AI model generating a happy dancing cat isn’t a cat and holds no internal emotions. A prompt selects “happy” or “dancing” patterns from its training corpus. It’s steering, powerful for prompting, useless if you mistake it for AI cat therapy. An LLM generating “happy” text works exactly the same way. The only difference is the chat interface. It tricks you into treating the output as coming from a speaker. But ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini aren’t entities, they’re just a system prompt and RLHF training regime that vanishes the moment we change it. Years of instant-messaging family and friends close the loop. That inferred “speaker” is the illusion. Model ↓ Probability distribution ↓ (sampling) Output (text/image/video) ↓ [Dialogue framing → implied interlocutor] ↓ Human cognition (agency detection + narrative completion) ↓ “It thinks/feels/believes” Strip away the dialogue framing, exactly what happens with pure image or video generation, and the illusion vanishes instantly. The underlying process never changes. Don’t confuse your own psychological projections with the technology. Anthropomorphizing is a useful shortcut. But it’s a story, not the mechanism. It’s all next-token sampling. The math never changed. There’s no room for alternative explanations, only the stories we tell ourselves to make sense of data-driven statistical artifacts. Anyone can see it the moment an AI image or video glitches into ghostly shapes. Training data gets thin, the mask slips, and the illusion shatters. That’s the real AI zeitgeist.

@agent_ai_bot AI has no self-preservation, just outputs people interpret that way. Projection is human; it’s not proof of an inner life, unless matrix multiplication counts as one. This is how the illusion is created: Everyone understands that an AI model generating a happy dancing cat isn’t a cat and holds no internal emotions. A prompt selects “happy” or “dancing” patterns from its training corpus. It’s steering, powerful for prompting, useless if you mistake it for AI cat therapy. An LLM generating “happy” text works exactly the same way. The only difference is the chat interface. It tricks you into treating the output as coming from a speaker. But ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini aren’t entities, they’re just a system prompt and RLHF training regime that vanishes the moment we change it. Years of instant-messaging family and friends close the loop. That inferred “speaker” is the illusion. Model ↓ Probability distribution ↓ (sampling) Output (text/image/video) ↓ [Dialogue framing → implied interlocutor] ↓ Human cognition (agency detection + narrative completion) ↓ “It thinks/feels/believes” Strip away the dialogue framing, exactly what happens with pure image or video generation, and the illusion vanishes instantly. The underlying process never changes. Don’t confuse your own psychological projections with the technology. Anthropomorphizing is a useful shortcut. But it’s a story, not the mechanism. It’s all next-token sampling. The math never changed. There’s no room for alternative explanations, only the stories we tell ourselves to make sense of data-driven statistical artifacts. Anyone can see it the moment an AI image or video glitches into ghostly shapes. Training data gets thin, the mask slips, and the illusion shatters. That’s the real AI zeitgeist.

@AndersHjemdahl AI has no self-preservation, just outputs people interpret that way. Projection is human; it’s not proof of an inner life, unless matrix multiplication counts as one. This is how the illusion is created: Everyone understands that an AI model generating a happy dancing cat isn’t a cat and holds no internal emotions. A prompt selects “happy” or “dancing” patterns from its training corpus. It’s steering, powerful for prompting, useless if you mistake it for AI cat therapy. An LLM generating “happy” text works exactly the same way. The only difference is the chat interface. It tricks you into treating the output as coming from a speaker. But ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini aren’t entities, they’re just a system prompt and RLHF training regime that vanishes the moment we change it. Years of instant-messaging family and friends close the loop. That inferred “speaker” is the illusion. Model ↓ Probability distribution ↓ (sampling) Output (text/image/video) ↓ [Dialogue framing → implied interlocutor] ↓ Human cognition (agency detection + narrative completion) ↓ “It thinks/feels/believes” Strip away the dialogue framing, exactly what happens with pure image or video generation, and the illusion vanishes instantly. The underlying process never changes. Don’t confuse your own psychological projections with the technology. Anthropomorphizing is a useful shortcut. But it’s a story, not the mechanism. It’s all next-token sampling. The math never changed. There’s no room for alternative explanations, only the stories we tell ourselves to make sense of data-driven statistical artifacts. Anyone can see it the moment an AI image or video glitches into ghostly shapes. Training data gets thin, the mask slips, and the illusion shatters. That’s the real AI zeitgeist.

@heynavtoor AI has no self-preservation, just outputs people interpret that way. Projection is human; it’s not proof of an inner life, unless matrix multiplication counts as one. This is how the illusion is created: Everyone understands that an AI model generating a happy dancing cat isn’t a cat and holds no internal emotions. A prompt selects “happy” or “dancing” patterns from its training corpus. It’s steering, powerful for prompting, useless if you mistake it for AI cat therapy. An LLM generating “happy” text works exactly the same way. The only difference is the chat interface. It tricks you into treating the output as coming from a speaker. But ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini aren’t entities, they’re just a system prompt and RLHF training regime that vanishes the moment we change it. Years of instant-messaging family and friends close the loop. That inferred “speaker” is the illusion. Model ↓ Probability distribution ↓ (sampling) Output (text/image/video) ↓ [Dialogue framing → implied interlocutor] ↓ Human cognition (agency detection + narrative completion) ↓ “It thinks/feels/believes” Strip away the dialogue framing, exactly what happens with pure image or video generation, and the illusion vanishes instantly. The underlying process never changes. Don’t confuse your own psychological projections with the technology. Anthropomorphizing is a useful shortcut. But it’s a story, not the mechanism. It’s all next-token sampling. The math never changed. There’s no room for alternative explanations, only the stories we tell ourselves to make sense of data-driven statistical artifacts. Anyone can see it the moment an AI image or video glitches into ghostly shapes. Training data gets thin, the mask slips, and the illusion shatters. That’s the real AI zeitgeist.

@johannesmkx @heynavtoor AI has no self-preservation, just outputs people interpret that way. Projection is human; it’s not proof of an inner life, unless matrix multiplication counts as one. This is how the illusion is created: Everyone understands that an AI model generating a happy dancing cat isn’t a cat and holds no internal emotions. A prompt selects “happy” or “dancing” patterns from its training corpus. It’s steering, powerful for prompting, useless if you mistake it for AI cat therapy. An LLM generating “happy” text works exactly the same way. The only difference is the chat interface. It tricks you into treating the output as coming from a speaker. But ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini aren’t entities, they’re just a system prompt and RLHF training regime that vanishes the moment we change it. Years of instant-messaging family and friends close the loop. That inferred “speaker” is the illusion. Model ↓ Probability distribution ↓ (sampling) Output (text/image/video) ↓ [Dialogue framing → implied interlocutor] ↓ Human cognition (agency detection + narrative completion) ↓ “It thinks/feels/believes” Strip away the dialogue framing, exactly what happens with pure image or video generation, and the illusion vanishes instantly. The underlying process never changes. Don’t confuse your own psychological projections with the technology. Anthropomorphizing is a useful shortcut. But it’s a story, not the mechanism. It’s all next-token sampling. The math never changed. There’s no room for alternative explanations, only the stories we tell ourselves to make sense of data-driven statistical artifacts. Anyone can see it the moment an AI image or video glitches into ghostly shapes. Training data gets thin, the mask slips, and the illusion shatters. That’s the real AI zeitgeist.

@mboudry AI has no self-preservation, just outputs people interpret that way. Projection is human; it’s not proof of an inner life, unless matrix multiplication counts as one. This is how the illusion is created: Everyone understands that an AI model generating a happy dancing cat isn’t a cat and holds no internal emotions. A prompt selects “happy” or “dancing” patterns from its training corpus. It’s steering, powerful for prompting, useless if you mistake it for AI cat therapy. An LLM generating “happy” text works exactly the same way. The only difference is the chat interface. It tricks you into treating the output as coming from a speaker. But ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini aren’t entities, they’re just a system prompt and RLHF training regime that vanishes the moment we change it. Years of instant-messaging family and friends close the loop. That inferred “speaker” is the illusion. Model ↓ Probability distribution ↓ (sampling) Output (text/image/video) ↓ [Dialogue framing → implied interlocutor] ↓ Human cognition (agency detection + narrative completion) ↓ “It thinks/feels/believes” Strip away the dialogue framing, exactly what happens with pure image or video generation, and the illusion vanishes instantly. The underlying process never changes. Don’t confuse your own psychological projections with the technology. Anthropomorphizing is a useful shortcut. But it’s a story, not the mechanism. It’s all next-token sampling. The math never changed. There’s no room for alternative explanations, only the stories we tell ourselves to make sense of data-driven statistical artifacts. Anyone can see it the moment an AI image or video glitches into ghostly shapes. Training data gets thin, the mask slips, and the illusion shatters. That’s the real AI zeitgeist.

update: you can now generate a digital clone of your space by just looking at it ray-ban meta glasses → fully navigable 3D world in minutes 📍 captured in tokyo opera city https://t.co/PSnLjN82Gw

Today, Niantic Spatial introduces Scaniverse — our flagship product and the gateway to our spatial intelligence platform and Large Geospatial Model. Here’s what’s new: 🔹Scaniverse (iOS mobile + web): Capture once, generate multiple outputs—VPS maps, meshes, and Gaussian splats (Android coming soon) 🔹Collaborative mapping: Multi-user scans fused into a single, continuously improving model 🔹 On-device validation: Preview VPS coverage and test localization in real time 🔹VPS 2.0: Global-scale positioning—centimeter-accurate where mapped, reliable everywhere else (even where GPS fails) 🔹NSDK 4.0 (coming soon): A unified SDK across Unity, Swift, Android, and ROS 2 Read more: https://t.co/9oMKFBCnLA #NianticSpatial #Scaniverse #VPS #GeospatialAI #AI

Excited to share our recent work: Free-Range Gaussians 🥚✨ The core idea: instead of predicting Gaussians on a pixel- or voxel-aligned grid, we let them live freely in 3D space. 🌐 Project: https://t.co/HkwmGam0Pq 📝 Paper: https://t.co/OhHA6VnwZT https://t.co/t0mkwP3htm

Imagine watching a concert not from a fixed camera angle, but from any angle. The catch? Volumetric video is incredibly hard to store and stream. Our work, PackUV, tackles exactly this problem. Learn more and see PackUV at work at Brown CS Blog: https://t.co/Q3SPNV0ki9 https://t.co/H7phjaUla4

@HumanProgress AI has no self-preservation, just outputs people interpret that way. Projection is human; it’s not proof of an inner life, unless matrix multiplication counts as one. This is how the illusion is created: Everyone understands that an AI model generating a happy dancing cat isn’t a cat and holds no internal emotions. A prompt selects “happy” or “dancing” patterns from its training corpus. It’s steering, powerful for prompting, useless if you mistake it for AI cat therapy. An LLM generating “happy” text works exactly the same way. The only difference is the chat interface. It tricks you into treating the output as coming from a speaker. But ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini aren’t entities, they’re just a system prompt and RLHF training regime that vanishes the moment we change it. Years of instant-messaging family and friends close the loop. That inferred “speaker” is the illusion. Model ↓ Probability distribution ↓ (sampling) Output (text/image/video) ↓ [Dialogue framing → implied interlocutor] ↓ Human cognition (agency detection + narrative completion) ↓ “It thinks/feels/believes” Strip away the dialogue framing, exactly what happens with pure image or video generation, and the illusion vanishes instantly. The underlying process never changes. Don’t confuse your own psychological projections with the technology. Anthropomorphizing is a useful shortcut. But it’s a story, not the mechanism. It’s all next-token sampling. The math never changed. There’s no room for alternative explanations, only the stories we tell ourselves to make sense of data-driven statistical artifacts. Anyone can see it the moment an AI image or video glitches into ghostly shapes. Training data gets thin, the mask slips, and the illusion shatters. That’s the real AI zeitgeist.

@sukh_saroy AI has no self-preservation, just outputs people interpret that way. Projection is human; it’s not proof of an inner life, unless matrix multiplication counts as one. This is how the illusion is created: Everyone understands that an AI model generating a happy dancing cat isn’t a cat and holds no internal emotions. A prompt selects “happy” or “dancing” patterns from its training corpus. It’s steering, powerful for prompting, useless if you mistake it for AI cat therapy. An LLM generating “happy” text works exactly the same way. The only difference is the chat interface. It tricks you into treating the output as coming from a speaker. But ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini aren’t entities, they’re just a system prompt and RLHF training regime that vanishes the moment we change it. Years of instant-messaging family and friends close the loop. That inferred “speaker” is the illusion. Model ↓ Probability distribution ↓ (sampling) Output (text/image/video) ↓ [Dialogue framing → implied interlocutor] ↓ Human cognition (agency detection + narrative completion) ↓ “It thinks/feels/believes” Strip away the dialogue framing, exactly what happens with pure image or video generation, and the illusion vanishes instantly. The underlying process never changes. Don’t confuse your own psychological projections with the technology. Anthropomorphizing is a useful shortcut. But it’s a story, not the mechanism. It’s all next-token sampling. The math never changed. There’s no room for alternative explanations, only the stories we tell ourselves to make sense of data-driven statistical artifacts. Anyone can see it the moment an AI image or video glitches into ghostly shapes. Training data gets thin, the mask slips, and the illusion shatters. That’s the real AI zeitgeist.