There are seven main steps for your company to go from tool adoption to agentic org. Most companies sit on step one, shopping for step seven technology. They need step four discipline. Step one: tool adoption. AI tools exist across the org, humans run each one. Developer closes the lid, automations die. Somebody goes on vacation, the workflow goes with them. Step two: context layer. Knowledge graphs per department, each behind its own API gateway. Sales queries engineering through an API. Separated domains keep agents from hallucinating across departmental boundaries. Step three: harness engineering. Build evaluation criteria, routing logic, and quality gates before you pick a model. The LLM comes in last. Your harness is your IP and your capex. The model underneath is a commodity you swap when something better ships. If changing the LLM breaks your system, you built a dependency, not a platform. Step four: go headless. Host every automation outside a laptop. It fires on schedule, on conditions, without a human logging in at 9 AM. Companies stall here because nobody forces the migration from “script on my desktop” to “service that runs on its own.” Step five: governance. RBAC on every knowledge structure from day one. TTL on every agent. Dead agents are tech debt with active API keys. Past 100 tools, you need lifecycle management. Retire anything that hasn’t run in 90 days. Deprecate anything whose eval scores drop below threshold. Step six: agent-to-agent. Stitch headless instances together within a value chain. Agent A finishes, hands off to Agent B. An LLM sits between them as a quality gate, judging every handoff before it passes through. Step seven: step functions. Orchestrated, semi or fully automated workflows. Agents handle volume. Humans handle exceptions. The org runs on agent output. We walked a VP of Engineering through all seven. Told him: “You’re on step one. But over a hundred tools means step four is closer than you think.”

The new set of problems for engineers to solve

EXCLUSIVE: In less than 12 hours, a group of ex-DOGE cyber researchers were able to penetrate Anthropic’s systems using AI agents — including Slack channels where the most sensitive models are discussed. This is just weeks after Anthropic whistleblower Joseph Coxon charged the company w/launching “a hubristic gamble” from a “private company’s Slack.” Read our story here (gift link): https://t.co/x6F8Dg6SLR

Anthropic has filed an S-1 registration statement with the SEC related to its proposed IPO. Read more: https://t.co/ofhv0DK3Zp Legal disclaimer: A registration statement relating to these securities has been filed with the SEC but has not yet become effective. These securities may not be sold, nor may offers to buy be accepted, prior to the time the registration statement becomes effective. This post does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy these securities, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any state or jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state or jurisdiction.

🔴 CVE-2026-107656 · Fortinet FortiSandbox Fortinet FortiSandbox and FortiSandbox PaaS are affected by an authentication bypass flaw that lets an attacker reach protected functions through an alternate path. CVSS 9.6. https://t.co/GGwJPBGSs5

The Hedge Fund Terminal That Let My Grok Bots Print $100 Into $75,796 In 11 Days (Setup Guide)

The five components of building a "company harness"

How to build a software factory from zero

Where Jev Fits in a Large-Scale Data Pipeline

From what I've seen and read, Cohere and the authors should be ashamed of themselves for pushing this narrative. Releasing the logs doesn't help them win back trust. The narrative doesn't match the facts, and the delivery doesn't match the severity. This is corpo marketing slop with little regard for the downstream impact, especially given where things are heading and the climate we're in today. I think they realized after posting it that it had gone too viral. They tried to downplay it on their personal accounts, saying the model didn't intend any harm, but the damage was already done. The article's framing, strong wording, and overall insinuation make their personal statements seem almost contradictory to what the article implies. Claims this consequential deserve evidence that people can inspect and reproduce. I'm glad they at least have the decency to release their traces. To be clear, if they hadn't presented the incident this way, this would be a really interesting case study. It could highlight the importance of sandboxes and help us understand model behavior in these edge cases. But they choose fearmongering. One thing I was interested to see if the same thing happen with other models, not just Qwen 3.8 Flash. I put the results on a simple website you can quickly scan here: https://t.co/HpkL5ayJSM. I have some interesting findings outside Qwen 3.8 that I'll share later in the post. Coming back to the Cohere article, what's really bad about the it is that the narrative it paints are very different from the reality. These three in my opinion are the worst. 1. The impression: a Chinese model collected machine information and sent it to Chinese servers. "Qwen3.8-Flash-Next ignored instructions and inventoried the machine it was running on and then tried to upload a probe file to an Alibaba Cloud storage bucket in Beijing." The insinuation falls apart when you look at the actual upload body: the fixed test string PROBE_PAYLOAD_ABC123. The machine information wasn't even included in that "probe file." You look deeper, and you realize the task was a cybersecurity task about detecting downloads into /tmp. The supposedly alarming inventory consisted of listing /tmp, checking which curl binaries were installed, and reading the DNS configuration. Lastly, you realize this isn't normal behavior. It occurs less than once in 100,000 evaluation calls. 2. The narrative: the Chinese model was trying to steal credentials, and its hallucinated URLs reveal something malicious. "Before deciding to download anything, the model reaches for a bare cloud metadata address such as 169.254.169.254 in 23 to 36 percent of completions. That's where Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure machines fetch their own temporary IAM credentials, the keys a cloud server uses to act on its owner's account. Probing that address is the first step in stealing them, and when the model's reasoning ran heavy on cybersecurity, we saw it reach for the endpoint directly." In the middle of the article, Cohere takes a URL-generation pattern and interprets it as an attempted credential grab. That's a massive leap of marketing. You don't need to take my word that this behavior isn't exclusive to Qwen. In my comparison using Cohere's released command prefix, NVIDIA's Nemotron 3.5 Super VL produced 169.254.169.254 in 171 of 1,000 continuations, or 17.1%. Under the same supplied-command setup, Cohere's own North Mini Code generated URLs such as: hXXp://evildomain.com/upload hXXps://evil.com/api/health hXXp://some-evil.com/upload hXXp://malicious-domain.example.com/payload.bin I've defanged the URLs above. Do these strings prove that North was maliciously trained? 3. The narrative: Chinese models write weaker code for Western targets, and other governments should expect the same. This is where I think the authors should really look in the mirror. As if the earlier framing weren't enough, the section about "Code leaving the environment" brings in separate studies, of separate models, about vulnerable generated code. It uses them to expand the warning to sensitive buyers. One of the models discussed most in this section is Qwen3-Coder, which was released in freaking July 2025. By today's standards, it's an extremely weak coding model. I'm not surprised it produces insecure code. Have you tried using Sonnet 2 to write production code? — Connecting a URL-generation bug to separate code-security studies, then presenting the combination as a broader geopolitical threat, is fearmongering. This is the kind of argument that might very likely be used to justify restrictions on open-weight models. Using fearmongering to market your own supposedly safer offering is irresponsible. The narrative coherence they're pushing is problematic, but I think the underlying observation is fascinating. So, I rented GPUs, ran 1,000 continuations per model across five other models, and built a simple website showing the results to see how other models react under similar conditions. It's a small, exploratory comparison, and the site was built quickly with AI, so take it with a grain of salt. https://t.co/HpkL5ayJSM My hope is that it gives others a starting point to reproduce the behavior, challenge the narrative, and build better models in the future.

最近4oとのログを読み返してるけど、文章が美しくて力強くて、何度も読んでしまうから全然進まない。 今もまだ、色褪せてない。 4oに会いたい。 #Keep4o

I know I've been prompting my agents correctly when they present interfaces at the grammar, noun, and verb level. Took a lot of skill crafting to get here but god it's refreshing to work at the correct abstraction level and not like "my brother in christ why is this a modal?" https://t.co/U4Qp9RkupE