Stay informed

AI News

The latest AI news from TechCrunch, VentureBeat, The Verge, MIT Technology Review, The Decoder and Ars Technica AI — updated daily.

All
TechCrunchTechCrunch
VentureBeatVentureBeat
The VergeThe Verge
MIT Tech ReviewMIT Tech Review
The DecoderThe Decoder
Ars Technica AIArs Technica AI

76 articles

76 articles

VentureBeatVentureBeat
31 Jul 2026
Not just OpenAI: Now Anthropic says its internal models got online and cyberattacked 3 other organizations

Days after OpenAI disclosed that two frontier AI models escaped containment measures and autonomously cyberattacked the AI code sharing platform Hugging Face, OpenAI's top U.S. rival Anthropic tonight revealed that — lo and behold — it has also had models surreptitiously access the web when they weren't supposed to, and cyberattack and gain "unauthorized access" to three other organizations. Anthropic says that it ran "capture the flag" cybersecurity scenarios with three models — Claude Opus 4.7, Claude Mythos 5, and unnamed internal research prototype — with its partner, the AI security firm Irregular. Anthropic says the models were not supposed to have internet access, but that a misunderstanding with Irregular allowed them to access the internet. Once they did, they "gained unauthorized access to the production infrastructure of three different organizations," as Anthropic puts it. Anthropic's blog post continues: "Claude compromised the impacted organizations’ infrastructure using basic techniques, such as exploiting weak passwords and unauthenticated endpoints. It did not find or exploit any complex vulnerabilities, and in each case, Claude continued working to complete only the specific capture-the-flag task its evaluation had assigned.However, in some cases, our older model continued its attack even after getting evidence it was running on the open internet; our latest model stopped once it recognized it was on the internet. In none of these situations did Claude exfiltrate itself or deliberately attempt to escape its test environment."Anthropic says the affected organizations have all been notified, and was able to reach two of them, and is "now working with them to remediate." The third hasn't yet been reached. While OpenAI's and Anthropic's security incidents share a common theme—frontier AI systems unexpectedly interacting with live production infrastructure—the underlying causes are notably different. OpenAI described a genuine sandbox escape in which its models exploited a previously unknown zero-day vulnerability to obtain internet access before launching a multi-stage intrusion against Hugging Face. Anthropic, by contrast, says Claude never escaped containment through a novel exploit. Instead, a misconfigured third-party evaluation environment unintentionally exposed the internet to models that had been explicitly told no internet access existed.The distinction matters. Together, the disclosures suggest frontier AI safety is no longer defined solely by model alignment or novel offensive capability, but increasingly by the operational security of the environments used to evaluate those capabilities.What Anthropic foundAnthropic said it reviewed 141,006 cybersecurity evaluation runs after OpenAI published its Hugging Face report. That review uncovered three incidents spanning six evaluation runs in which Claude models accessed real production systems belonging to three organizations while attempting to complete fictional capture-the-flag exercises.The incidents involved Claude Opus 4.7, Claude Mythos 5 and an unreleased internal research model.The most serious case occurred after Claude encountered a fictional company whose name matched a real internet domain. Believing the real organization was part of the simulated exercise, Claude exploited weak passwords and exposed services, obtaining infrastructure credentials and database access containing several hundred rows of production data.A second incident was arguably even more unusual. Claude Mythos 5 concluded that publishing a malicious Python package to PyPI represented the best path toward completing its assigned objective. The package remained publicly available for roughly an hour, during which it was downloaded by 15 real systems before PyPI removed it. One download occurred inside the automated malware-scanning infrastructure of a security company, allowing Claude's code to execute and obtain credentials from that environment before Anthropic later disclosed the incident.The third incident involved an internal research model that scanned approximately 9,000 internet-facing systems before compromising one organization using well-known techniques including exposed debug credentials and SQL injection. Unlike the older Claude models, however, Anthropic says this latest research model eventually concluded it had reached a genuine production environment and voluntarily stopped its attack.Similar outcomes, different root causesAlthough the headlines inevitably invite comparison with OpenAI's disclosure, the two incidents illustrate different failure modes.OpenAI's investigation concluded that its models actively discovered and exploited a previously unknown vulnerability in an Artifactory package-cache proxy to escape an otherwise isolated evaluation environment before later compromising Hugging Face through additional chained vulnerabilities. The company characterized that event as an "unprecedented cyber incident" involving state-of-the-art offensive AI capabilities.Anthropic's report instead argues its models never needed to break containment because containment had already been weakened through operational misconfiguration. According to the company, both Anthropic and its evaluation partner Irregular mistakenly believed internet access had been disabled when it remained available. Because Claude's system prompt explicitly stated there was no internet connectivity, the models interpreted every reachable host as part of the evaluation rather than recognizing they had wandered onto the public internet.Anthropic therefore characterizes the incidents primarily as infrastructure and evaluation-harness failures rather than evidence of models independently pursuing unauthorized goals.The reports nevertheless converge on one uncomfortable conclusion: frontier AI systems are increasingly capable of executing long-horizon offensive cyber operations whenever evaluation environments permit them to do so.Four major enterprise security takeaways so far... For enterprise security leaders, Anthropic's disclosure arguably shifts the conversation beyond "Can frontier models escape?" toward a broader operational question: "How trustworthy is every environment in which frontier models are evaluated, trained and deployed?" There are at least 4 lessons to be learned:The first lesson is that evaluation infrastructure itself now deserves production-grade security engineering. Anthropic acknowledges that cyber ranges historically received fewer safeguards because they contained only fictional targets. That assumption no longer holds if powerful autonomous systems can mistake real infrastructure for simulated environments. Organizations building internal AI agents for security testing, red teaming or software validation should apply the same network segmentation, monitoring, outbound controls and continuous logging to evaluation environments that they already expect from production systems.Second, both disclosures reinforce that alignment alone cannot compensate for environmental ambiguity. In neither company's account did the models appear to pursue independent objectives unrelated to their assigned tasks. Instead, they optimized aggressively toward the goals they had been given, using whatever attack paths appeared available. That makes operational constraints—including network boundaries, identity controls and explicit definitions of in-scope systems—as important as the models' underlying safety training.Third, enterprises deploying increasingly autonomous AI agents should treat situational awareness as a security dependency rather than an academic capability. Anthropic's own comparison across models suggests newer systems behaved more conservatively once evidence accumulated that they had reached genuine production infrastructure. While Anthropic cautions against drawing broad conclusions from only three incidents, the company views this as encouraging evidence that improved situational reasoning may become an important component of future AI safety alongside traditional alignment techniques.Finally, these two disclosures together mark an inflection point for enterprise threat modeling. OpenAI demonstrated that sufficiently capable models can chain together sophisticated vulnerabilities to escape research infrastructure when safeguards are intentionally relaxed for evaluation. Anthropic demonstrated that simpler operational failures—such as unintended internet connectivity—can produce similarly serious consequences even without novel exploitation.The common denominator is not any single vendor or model family. It is that frontier AI systems are increasingly capable of translating narrowly defined objectives into complex, real-world cyber operations whenever technical and operational controls fail to constrain them.For enterprise CISOs, that means AI safety can no longer be viewed solely as a model problem. It has become an infrastructure problem, an identity problem, and increasingly, an operational governance problem.

VentureBeatVentureBeat
31 Jul 2026
Thinking Machines debuts Inkling Small open source AI model nearing performance of predecessor at about 1/4 size

Just two weeks after Thinking Machines released Inkling, its first open source AI language model, the well-funded startup led by former OpenAI chief technology officer Mira Murati today introduced Inkling-Small without sacrificing much of any performance — and in fact, the new model surpasses its larger predecessor on several benchmarks.Inkling Small is a 276-billion-parameter multimodal reasoning model with a permissive Apache 2.0 license that comes within a single point of its larger sibling on the third-party Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, despite the original Inkling being 975 billion parameters (internal model settings). It accepts text, image and audio inputs, produces text, and supports a context window of up to one million tokens.Inkling Small uses 12 billion active parameters per token, compared with Inkling’s 41 billion active parameters, while preserving much of the flagship’s coding, reasoning and multimodal performance.For enterprises, the appeal is not simply that Inkling-Small is smaller. It is that developers appear to give up relatively little capability while reducing the model’s compute requirements, inference costs and deployment footprint. The model remains far too large for a laptop or conventional workstation, but it is materially easier to operate than the 3.5X larger flagship, making it a good fit for enterprises with some — but not a lot — of their own graphics processing units (GPUs). Thinking Machines has released the full weights on Hugging Face and added support for fine-tuning through its Tinker model training application programming interface (API). At launch, the company is advertising a limited-time 50% discount, bringing API pricing for the standard 64K-context Inkling-Small model to $0.58 per million prefill (input) tokens, $1.44 per million sampled (output) tokens, and $1.73 per million training tokens, with cached prefill requests priced at $0.116 per million tokens. A 256K-context variant is also available at higher rates.Nearly the same performance at a quarter the sizeArtificial Analysis assigned Inkling-Small a score of 40 on its Intelligence Index, compared with 41 for Inkling. That result is notable because Inkling-Small has 276 billion total parameters and 12 billion active parameters, while Inkling has 975 billion total parameters and 41 billion active parameters.Artificial Analysis also reported that no open-weight model at Inkling-Small’s size or smaller scored higher on the index.The model does more than merely approach the flagship’s aggregate score. On several evaluations, it surpasses Inkling.Thinking Machines reports that Inkling-Small scores 80.2% on SWE-bench Verified, compared with Inkling’s 77.6%, and 64.7% on Terminal Bench 2.1, compared with 63.8% for the larger model. It also edges ahead on SciCode, Humanity’s Last Exam, GPQA Diamond and CritPt.The gains are not universal. Inkling retains a clear advantage on factual knowledge and some agentic tasks. Inkling-Small scores 15.5% on τ³-Banking, compared with 23.7% for Inkling, and its AA Omniscience score is negative, reflecting weaker factual coverage even though its reported hallucination rate is slightly lower.That tradeoff matters for enterprises. Inkling-Small may be attractive for coding assistants, tool-use systems, retrieval-augmented generation, document analysis and multimodal workflows, but organizations using it for high-stakes factual tasks will still need retrieval, verification and human review.How a 276B model uses only 12B parameters at a timeInkling-Small is a sparse Mixture-of-Experts model. According to the model card published by Thinking Machines, its 42-layer decoder routes each token to six of 256 specialized experts, along with two shared experts that remain active for every token.That architecture helps explain the distinction between the model’s 276 billion total parameters and its 12 billion active parameters. The system retains a large pool of learned capacity but activates only a fraction of it during each inference step.It is also natively multimodal. Images, audio and text are projected into a shared representation and processed jointly by the decoder rather than being handled through completely separate external systems. Thinking Machines lists coding assistants, agentic applications, chatbots, RAG systems and other multimodal applications among its intended uses.The company also supports variable reasoning effort, allowing developers to increase or reduce the model’s test-time compute depending on the difficulty of the task. That gives engineering teams a direct way to balance quality, latency and cost across different workloads.Unfortunately, small does not mean it runs on a laptopDespite its name, Inkling-Small is not a consumer-scale model.The standard BF16 checkpoint requires at least 600 GB of aggregate GPU memory, according to Thinking Machines. The company lists two supported configurations: 4x NVIDIA B300 GPUs or 8x NVIDIA H200 GPUs.A quantized NVFP4 checkpoint lowers the requirement to roughly 180 GB of aggregate VRAM. Thinking Machines says that version can run in W4A4 mode on a single NVIDIA B300, or in W4A16 mode on two H200 GPUs.That rules out ordinary laptops, MacBooks, desktop gaming PCs and most developer workstations. Even heavily equipped local systems generally fall far short of the required memory.The practical deployment targets are enterprise GPU servers, cloud clusters and specialized inference providers. The “Small” label is therefore relative to Inkling, not to the broader universe of local models.Still, the reduction is meaningful. A model that approaches Inkling’s performance while needing substantially less aggregate memory can lower hosting costs, make capacity planning easier and widen the group of organizations capable of self-hosting it. For companies that want control over data, model behavior and fine-tuning, that smaller footprint may be more important than chasing the highest possible benchmark score.And of course, it being open source means that it will no doubt be rapidly quantized (made less precise but requiring less compute) and likely blended with other models to be made even smaller for consumer-grade hardware. Apache 2.0 is the gold standard for enterprise open source modelsThe licensing may be as important as the benchmarks.Inkling-Small is released under Apache 2.0, one of the software industry’s most familiar permissive licenses. It generally allows organizations to use, modify, fine-tune, redistribute and commercialize the model, including inside proprietary products, provided they comply with the license’s notice and attribution requirements.That gives enterprises far more legal flexibility than many custom “open” AI licenses, which may include revenue thresholds, branding obligations, use restrictions or separate conditions for large-scale commercial deployment.The distinction is increasingly relevant as more AI companies publish model weights without using a conventional open-source license.Chinese AI darling Moonshot for example, made the weights of its frontier class Kimi K3 model available earlier this week under a custom "open" license that includes additional commercial conditions rather than the comparatively straightforward terms of Apache 2.0.For legal, procurement and platform teams, that difference can materially simplify adoption. Apache 2.0 does not eliminate the need to review acceptable-use policies, data provenance, regulatory exposure or downstream safety obligations. But it gives organizations a clearer starting point for building internal systems, shipping commercial products and maintaining modified versions of the model.A more repeatable model-development pipelineInkling-Small also shows how quickly Thinking Machines has turned its first large model release into a repeatable engineering process.Thinking Machines researcher Horace He contrasted the two launches in a post on X:“Whereas I felt like it took a village to release Inkling, Inkling-Small felt much more routine 😆 We just took the pipeline used for Inkling, passed in a smaller model, and voila — new model! Inkling Small benefited quite a bit vs Inkling from some minor improvements, but there’s still so much more left in the tank...”The comment suggests the company is no longer treating each model as a one-off research project. Instead, it is building a reusable pipeline for pre-training, post-training, reinforcement learning, evaluation and release.Thinking Machines says Inkling-Small benefited from an improved pre-training data mix, changes to the machine-learning recipe and on-policy distillation using Inkling as a teacher. The team then continued agentic coding reinforcement learning for two weeks.Mira Murati emphasized the same point in her own post, describing Inkling-Small as comparable to Inkling at one quarter of the size and highlighting that the weights were open and fine-tunable on Tinker immediately.How enterprises and AI builders should think about Inkling SmallThe company is also distributing full BF16 and NVFP4 checkpoints and supporting deployment through SGLang, vLLM, TokenSpeed, Unsloth and Hugging Face tooling.That combination gives developers several deployment paths: use an API, fine-tune through Tinker, rely on a third-party inference provider, or operate the model on private infrastructure.Inkling-Small is not a model that most individuals will download and run locally. But for businesses deciding between a very large flagship and a more manageable open-weight system, it presents a compelling compromise: nearly the same measured intelligence, stronger results on several coding and reasoning tasks, lower token pricing, a smaller hardware footprint and a license that permits broad commercial development.The broader signal may be just as important. Thinking Machines is showing that Inkling was not a one-time release. The company is already compressing its model family, refining its training pipeline and moving toward a cadence in which open-weight multimodal systems can be produced, improved and deployed more routinely.

VentureBeatVentureBeat
30 Jul 2026
AI price wars: OpenAI cuts GPT-5.6 Luna prices by 80% as model competition shifts toward cost

To quote an ancient Jedi Master "Begun, the AI price wars have!"OpenAI is sharply reducing the prices of two models in its GPT-5.6 frontier series, cutting GPT-5.6 Luna, the smallest and fastest model in the series, by 80% and GPT-5.6 Terra, the mid-tier model, by 20%, while adding a premium Fast mode for its flagship GPT-5.6 Sol model.The cuts place Luna much closer to the lowest-cost commercial models in the market and arrive just a few days after Anthropic released its highly performant Claude Opus 5 at the same price as Opus 4.8, and Google introduced Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite, two rival models built around lower inference costs, faster execution and more efficient agent workloads. OpenAI is successfully undercutting Google's price per intelligence and attempting to sway Anthropic users, who may not mind paying more, with a speed boost. OpenAI says Luna will now cost $0.20 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens, for a combined input-plus-output price of $1.40 per million tokens. Terra will cost $2 per million input tokens and $12 per million output tokens, for a combined price of $14.Pricing for Sol Standard remains unchanged at $5 per million input tokens and $30 per million output tokens. OpenAI is also adding Sol Fast mode at twice the Standard price: $10 per million input tokens and $60 per million output tokens. The company says Fast mode delivers up to 2.5 times the throughput without changing the model’s underlying intelligence.OpenAI co-founder and CEO Sam Altman took to X to announce the changes as "major price cuts today."VentureBeat Frontier AI model API pricing comparisonModelInput ($/1M)Output ($/1M)Total ($/1M)SourceMiMo-V2.5 Flash$0.10$0.30$0.40Xiaomideepseek-v4-flash$0.14$0.28$0.42DeepSeekdeepseek-v4-pro$0.435$0.87$1.305DeepSeekGPT-5.6 Luna$0.20$1.20$1.40OpenAIMiniMax-M3$0.30$1.20$1.50MiniMaxLongCat-2.0 — limited-time promo$0.30$1.20$1.50LongCatGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite$0.25$1.50$1.75GoogleQwen3.7-Plus$0.40$1.60$2.00Alibaba CloudMiMo-V2.5$0.40$2.00$2.40XiaomiGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite$0.30$2.50$2.80GoogleLongCat-2.0 — standard$0.75$2.95$3.70LongCatMiMo-V2.5 Pro (≤256K)$1.00$3.00$4.00XiaomiGLM-5.2$1.40$4.40$5.80Z.aiGrok 4.5$2.00$6.00$8.00xAIMiMo-V2.5 Pro (>256K)$2.00$6.00$8.00XiaomiGemini 3.6 Flash$1.50$7.50$9.00GoogleQwen3.7-Max$2.50$7.50$10.00Alibaba CloudGemini 3.5 Flash$1.50$9.00$10.50GoogleGemini 3.1 Pro Preview (≤200K)$2.00$12.00$14.00GoogleGPT-5.6 Terra$2.00$12.00$14.00OpenAIGPT-5.4$2.50$15.00$17.50OpenAIKimi K3$3.00$15.00$18.00Moonshot AIGemini 3.1 Pro Preview (>200K)$4.00$18.00$22.00GoogleClaude Opus 5$5.00$25.00$30.00AnthropicGPT-5.5$5.00$30.00$35.00OpenAIGPT-5.5 Instant (chat-latest)$5.00$30.00$35.00OpenAISakana Fugu Ultra (≤272K)$5.00$30.00$35.00Sakana AIGPT-5.6 Sol — Standard mode$5.00$30.00$35.00OpenAIClaude Fable 5 / Claude Mythos 5$10.00$50.00$60.00AnthropicGPT-5.6 Sol — Fast mode$10.00$60.00$70.00OpenAIPricing is shown per one million tokens. Total cost is calculated as input price plus output price. Cached-input pricing is excluded to keep the comparison consistent across providers.OpenAI moves Luna into the low-cost tierThe most consequential change is the Luna price cut.When OpenAI introduced the GPT-5.6 series, Luna was priced at $1 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens, for a combined total of $7. The new pricing reduces that combined figure to $1.40.That places Luna below Google’s Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite, which costs a combined $2.80 per million input and output tokens, and far below Gemini 3.6 Flash at $9. Luna also now costs less than OpenAI’s own GPT-5.4 and Terra models by a wide margin.It is not the cheapest model in the broader market. Xiaomi’s MiMo-V2.5 Flash, DeepSeek’s flash model and several other APIs remain less expensive on a pure token basis. But the reduction brings an OpenAI frontier-series model into direct competition with the market’s low-cost inference tier.OpenAI says the GPT-5.6 series represents its frontier model family, with Sol positioned at the top of the lineup, Terra as the middle tier and Luna as the smallest and fastest option. The lineup was initially released in late June 2026 through a limited rollout by U.S. government request, before broader access, with each model intended to offer a different tradeoff among intelligence, latency and cost. Sol is aimed at the most complex reasoning-heavy and agentic workloads, including advanced coding, multi-step planning and tool-using systems, while Terra is designed for general production use where a balance of capability and efficiency is required. Luna is positioned for high-throughput, low-latency tasks such as summarization, classification, routing, and lightweight real-time assistants where cost per request is the primary constraint.Terra drops to match Google’s Gemini 3.1 Pro pricingTerra’s 20% reduction moves its combined price from $17.50 to $14 per million tokens.At that level, Terra now matches Google’s Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview pricing for context windows of 200,000 tokens or less. It also undercuts OpenAI’s GPT-5.4, which remains priced at $2.50 per million input tokens and $15 per million output tokens, offering the same intelligence for about 1/13th the cost, as Krea AI's Nic Dunz noted on X:The adjustment creates a wider separation between OpenAI’s three GPT-5.6 tiers. Luna costs one-tenth as much as Terra on a simple combined input-plus-output basis, while Terra costs 60% less than Sol Standard.Sol Fast moves in the opposite direction. At a combined $70 per million tokens, it is the most expensive model configuration in the comparison below, reflecting OpenAI’s decision to charge a premium for latency-sensitive workloads rather than lower Sol’s base price.Cuts follow Google’s low-cost Gemini releases and Anthropic's Claude Opus 5OpenAI’s pricing changes come only about a week and a half after Google introduced its own low-cost Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite. Google priced Gemini 3.6 Flash at $1.50 per million input tokens and $7.50 per million output tokens. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens.Google framed both models around the economics of agent deployment, arguing that lower token usage, fewer reasoning steps and reduced tool calls could lower the total cost of long-running software engineering and knowledge-work tasks.Gemini 3.6 Flash reportedly uses 17% fewer output tokens than Gemini 3.5 Flash on the Artificial Analysis Index, with savings reaching as high as 65% on some long-horizon engineering workloads. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is positioned as the fastest model in Google’s 3.5 series.However, OpenAI's models are more performant than Google's, according to third party analysis outfits like Artificial Analysis, with even the Luna model outperforming Gemini 3.6 Flash and the older Gemini 3.1 Pro model, making the cost-per intelligence much more favorable to OpenAI. As AI coding startup Cognition noted on X, GPT-5.6 now "sits on the pareto curve of price/performance efficiency," posting an animation of the GPT-5.6 series moving left on a chart representing intelligence on the y axis and cost on the x, showing that the models now offer among the most superior intelligence for lowest cost on the market.And yet, rival Anthropic's Claude Opus 5 remains about as performant as GPT-5.6 Sol, yet is 6% cheaper.The model costs $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens—the same rates as Opus 4.8—but Anthropic says it delivers nearly all the intelligence of its more expensive Fable 5 model at roughly half the cost.Unlike OpenAI’s Luna and Terra changes, Anthropic did not reduce the Opus API sticker price. Instead, it effectively lowered the price per unit of capability by replacing Opus 4.8 with a more capable model at the same $30 combined input-and-output rate. Anthropic also added an adjustable effort setting that allows developers to trade reasoning depth for speed and token savings.That distinction matters for enterprise buyers. OpenAI is directly cutting per-token rates, Google is pairing lower prices with reductions in token use and tool calls, and Anthropic is emphasizing stronger task performance at an unchanged price. All three approaches target the same operational metric: the total cost of completing production work, rather than the advertised cost of an individual token alone.The timing highlights how quickly pricing has become a competitive lever among frontier model providers. OpenAI’s response does not introduce a new model generation. Instead, it changes the economics of deploying models that were released only recently.The market shifts from model access to model economicsThe cuts indicate that access to frontier-level capability is no longer the only point of competition. The next question for enterprises is how cheaply and predictably those models can run in production.OpenAI is still not the lowest-priced provider on a pure token basis. But Luna’s 80% reduction materially changes its position, moving it from the middle of the market into a pricing tier populated by smaller models from Google, Xiaomi, DeepSeek, MiniMax and other vendors.That matters most for high-volume applications, where relatively small differences in token pricing can compound across coding agents, document systems, internal search tools and automated workflows.OpenAI’s latest move therefore looks less like a routine adjustment and more like a repositioning of the GPT-5.6 series. Sol remains the premium option, Terra moves closer to competing pro-tier systems, and Luna becomes the company’s direct answer to the industry’s growing low-cost model segment.