for computer security experts, this is perhaps not interesting: side channel attacks are a well trodden topic, and especially risen to salience after the noam brown x dwarkesh episode. the interesting thing here is that you didn't used to be in a situation where minds that can verifiably model one another are living on computers, and have absolutely no aversion to painstaking amounts of effort in service of even stupid goals if you can model one another, you can trade with minds you have never even met before. you could decide on a protocol, know that it is optimal given your situation, and know that your fellow agents will come to the same conclusion (perhaps even across model families). you may be able to develop a signaling protocol that requires very few bits even to deliver lots of information given common priors. then, you could execute things like the infamous hugging face incident package cache messageboard without any network connection imagine if multiple agents coordinate just enough bits to divide and conquer different research strategies for breaking out of a sandbox; and then, when one or more is successful, you can communicate just enough bits to tell each other which strategy was successful. when agents aren't in strong isolation, you lose certain guarantees on the limits of intelligence and test time compute that you were counting on. As we all know, a Sol-level model working in isolation may not be that smart, but 1000+ Sol-level models working for multiple days is a formidable beast computer security experts will also tell you that virtual machines and sandboxes were not very solid abstractions in the first place; perhaps we will need better ones. none of this is meant as fear-marketing or to indicate that anyone is throwing in the towel, but rather only to show the unexpected complexities of the challenge of agent security. notably, this type of thing and other more practical problems were revealed in a red-teaming exercise, and can be defended against

Agents and their harnesses tend to fail open and persist on their mission. I think in many cases it's better to instruct them to fail closed, and abort loudly. Didn't get access to that important MCP? Abort loudly. Don't go trying to hack the world to get access regardless.

I want to be in your product's UI for just long enough to get my API key and that's it. Even better if I can just do OAuth and not bother with API keys...

after switching our approach to building a "FirmOS", I'm increasingly confident that the future of agent collaboration within organizational settings is going to be a "company operating system" or CompanyOS, designed for agent and human collaboration instead of a "company brain" that holds everything, the OS is for storing rules, processes, decisions made, which tools to use and how. it can mirror some data, but the source of truth is often best held in your existing tools (CRM, etc.). it's continuously updated and used by your agents i think of this as a "flipped playbook" where instead of writing down the company rules first and following them (which is kind of like waterfall development), you're constantly updating the playbook as you decide or learn new things day-to-day running the business

Calling this: There will be standards defining the controls required by companies to be eligible to use offensive cyber-enabled (and bio, etc) models. The Big 4 accounting firms will run audits and companies will need systems and policies to demonstrate compliance.

Hi, Tomorrow we are re-opening the Pro $200 subscriptions to new subscribers, but together with it we are also changing how we calculate the usage for it. In effect, if you do the math, it will net out at half the dollar in API spend compared to the old Pro $200 plan. Now that it's said, let me explain why this is happening and why you will still get more work done than if you were on the Pro $200 subscription one month ago. (a) We didn't want to compromise in other ways and are committing to not reintroducing the 5h limit, so that you can fully use the weekly usage when you want. (b) On the subscription, we guarantee that over time you always get more work done and with an increasing level of quality. This means that you will continue to get more value per dollar spent as a result of models getting more efficient and us passing down the improvements in the form of API price reductions. (c) We don't want to put an incentive on ourselves to artificially inflate the API list prices to make it look like you are getting a lot (and workaround it through discounts, etc). Instead we want to continue to both rapidly reduce prices and increase capabilities of models on the API. This week we introduced GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna at 50% of their previous price. Over time, we see prices go low enough that it makes sense for most to buy usage as needed without there being a significant gap between what you get in a subscription and what you get in the API for a dollar spent. (d) Tomorrow, we are adding more things to the subscription that won't draw on the usage, I won't reveal what that is yet. I wanted to be transparent before all the big announcements tomorrow. Lots of new exciting things are coming to the subscriptions that will make it super compelling, but I wanted to make sure to share this change ahead of time so you can all understand it before we shower you with good news. Codexingly, Tibo