1115
103
Microsoft researchers have discovered “Lazarus,” a backdoor technique that can reprogram dormant neurons in an AI model, causing an otherwise normal AI agent to execute malicious commands when a hidden trigger appears. The threat is especially serious for AI agents with tool or terminal access. A triggered model could quietly download and run attacker code, […] The post Lazare, veni…
New York is preparing to enforce its sweeping AI safety law, requiring major developers like OpenAI and Anthropic to register, disclose safety practices, and report…
Each of the seven co-founders plans to sell exactly the same number of shares in the IPO, which would bring each of them about $250…
PSI used an unreleased Anthropic model to answer a fundamental question about quantum computing that scientists have pursued for nearly two decades.
Text-to-SQL systems over large pooled catalogs must first retrieve the tables a question needs. We compare against the published table recall of RASL, which uses Claude 3.5 models to extract keywords and select tables, on pooled BIRD, Spider, and Fiben catalogs. FERN (Feature-Engineered Ranking with No generative LLM) instead fuses three frozen retrievers into 100 candidates, describes each with up to 120 features, and reorders them with LightGBM rankers fitted once on BIRD's training questions. On Spider, where it was not fitted, its candidate pool alone reaches RASL's published recall at fifteen tables (98.0), and the ranker raises the share of questions with every gold table in the top five (complete@5) from 83.9% to 95.6%. At five tables, FERN's recall is within one point of RASL's on Spider (96.7 vs 97.0) and on BIRD with its evidence hints (96.6 vs 97.5), and 8.2 points below on BIRD without them (89.3). On 121 real BEAVER questions, without BEAVER fitting, its recall at fifteen (82.1) falls between two BEAVER-trained retrievers (80.8, 84.5), but its complete@15 is below both (49.6 vs 54.5 and 62.0). On Fiben, it falls far short at fifteen tables (54.2 vs 69.2, different question sets), although its recall at fifty is numerically close to RASL's question-only retrieval result (80.7 vs 79.4). On BIRD dev with evidence, non-retrieval features raise complete@5 by 7.7 points over retrieval signals alone. On BIRD dev, median latency is 208 ms per question on one A100, without hosted model calls.
As participants talk, Claude can draft the plan being discussed, map out a timeline on a whiteboard, answer questions in the meeting chat, and access…
For years, Anthropic has been known for its focus on enterprise and coding tools that attract high-flying corporate clients, inspiring competing frontier labs - like…
Google is rolling out its latest AI model, Gemini 4 Carbon, to the general public after releasing it to a select group of "cybersecurity defenders"…
Anthropic confirmed on Tuesday that its IPO could be one of the biggest ever, even while falling short of previous expectations. Its IPO price is…
The company could end up being worth a hefty $1.404 trillion if its shares list at the top of the price range, on a fully…
Emergencies can occur where there is no phone signal and no ambulance nearby. A small language model on a phone can be helpful in such situations, but its advice needs to be safe and accurate. We built HandsOnAid, a 4-bit Gemma 2B model fine-tuned with QLoRA on FirstAidQA dataset, a corpus of 5,550 first-aid question-answer pairs. We compared seven configurations, including the base, 4-bit and 8-bit fine-tuned models, and versions with a length floor, safety gate, or retrieval. We used a 41-pair question-answer bank with medically reviewed references that followed ANZCOR guidelines, and a strict 0-5 score rubric, with twelve safety overrides. Four frontier LLM judges (GPT-5.6 Sol, Claude Opus 5, DeepSeek V4 Pro, GLM-5.3) blindly scored every answer, with 45 hidden controls used to check judge reliability. Fine-tuning improved the mean score by +1.08 over the base model to 2.34. The best configuration scored 2.51 out of 5 which was the fine-tuned 4-bit model with retrieval. A medical professional also conducted a blind evaluation of 40 answers across the base, the 4-bit fine-tuned, and the retrieval configurations, and the scores were similar to the LLM judges' average scores. A keyword audit found limited coverage of several details of ANZCOR guidelines in the training corpus, that are required by the rubric, which suggests that missing information in the training data could be a cause of the low scores. On a smartphone device (Pixel 7 Pro) with six CPU threads and no network connection, the 4-bit fine-tuned model produced its first displayable text in 6.86 seconds and a complete answer in 14.88 seconds on average over ten questions.
