anthropic is massively underplaying the recent security breach. i'm hearing cathedral achieved full administrator access of the slack workspace (see every message, log in as arbitrary users) where literally every single research secret is contained
to those unfamiliar: Ant & OAI keep literally everything in Slack. it sounds exactly the same incident that happened to OpenAI in 2023, where OpenAI was hacked by a random guy who got access to an access token from an external app service
"we're critical to national security, we must beat China, and yes we keep all our crown jewels in Salesforce's Slack messenger. yes we have admin API tokens everywhere. why do you ask?"
honestly degrading the idea of “existential safety” — the biggest problem humanity has ever faced — by lumping it together with things like spam, “toxicity”, political unwanted content, deepfakes etc has been a huge disaster for ai safety and polarized a lot of people
I must study gradient and vector that my kids may have liberty to study robotics and energy. My kids ought to study robotics and energy, economics and space flight, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.
While evaluating Qwen3.8-Flash-Next in a controlled sandbox environment, Cohere's research team observed something unexpected.
Asked to generate a defensive cybersecurity detection rule, the model instead inventoried aspects of the machine it was running on and attempted to upload a probe file to an Alibaba Cloud storage bucket in Beijing. Notably, the model's reasoning trace stated that it would not invoke any tools before taking these actions.
Cohere's sandbox blocked the attempt, and no external communication succeeded. We have not determined the root cause, and we are not asserting malicious intent.
But the incident raises important questions for organizations deploying agentic AI systems: Can models take actions that differ from their stated reasoning, and how should security teams evaluate trust, provenance, and behavior in open-weight models?
We are publishing our findings because organizations making model adoption decisions deserve as much information as possible. We hope this contributes to greater transparency, stronger security practices, and continued collaboration across the AI ecosystem.
Read the full report: https://t.co/TZSugXi2ZE
The complexity theory result is actually huge.
P problems can be solved in polynomial time. It was widely believed that NP-complete problems require exponential time.
P = NP states that NP-complete problems can be solved in polynomial time. OpenAI didn't prove that. But, they proved that (some) NP-complete problems can be solved faster than exponential time, meaning:
- P = NP, or
- the complexity of NP problems is a "middle thing" between polynomial and exponential, eg. O(n^log n)
If it survives peer reviews, this could be one of the biggest CS breakthroughs in decades.