A fine-tuned 8B model beat Claude Sonnet 5 on 437 contract clauses.
73.7% vs 70.0% accuracy
250 ms vs 2,230 ms per answer
$0.125 vs about $2.00 per 1,000 answers
Sonnet 5 still won the rare categories, 67.4% vs 60.4%.
On a narrow task, the specialist wins.
Anthropic is cracking down on AI-generated video game clones through Claude Code.
A new instruction added tells Claude to build original games or use ideas from existing genres, but not recreate specific games, even if theyโre renamed.
The move could affect people using AI to recreate games like Terraria, Minecraft, Halo or GTA as browser games or unofficial ports.
@rohanpaul_ai I wonder what anthopic and openai are using to do the same, I felt that the latest models are becoming quite good at double checking any push back
An independent review of ReOpenly is out. Present of AI signed up, used the free credits and fine-tuned a small model on their own examples, twice.
From what they found: "Round 2 trained in 6 min 6 s, and all 5 held-out answers came in within 20 words."
@MaziyarPanahi I'm building a platform to help curate data and be able to create specialized models: https://t.co/3DL1z4KE6r
so far we have text and embeddings models; so for healthcare case, it can improve notes, triages, cases retrieval, etc
@MaziyarPanahi Indeed! Me too, I only have the feeling that people are trusting too much nowadays, they should definitely reason on the response and give a feedback when things are wrong instead of blinding believing in it
https://t.co/Wmsq7u2F4q
The README also points to ReOpenly skills for your coding agent: upload Q&A data, fine-tune and deploy text models, and call them. https://t.co/FgXIdnQH0E
Our embedding examples are public on GitHub. Rank passages for a question, plot six texts on a chart, report searches for review, compare a trained model with the base. One command each, plus a notebook with all four. Nothing in there starts a training run, so play away.
Fine-tune an embedding model on your own searches: the results that helped, plus the near misses that looked right but weren't. You only pay for the GPU time while it trains.
I get it, we're not really reviewing code line by line anymore. Agents write it, agents review it.
But how are you reviewing the changes? What changed in behavior, what's risky, what the checks actually proved. GitHub Universe 2026 didn't touch that at all.
https://t.co/s1S3WWEtsq
I was just watching Kent Beck talk in a event, and I loved that he called the LLM solutions as "Genies" since it grants wishes but not as you would like