AI News Archive: July 25, 2026 — Part 4
Sourced from 500+ daily AI sources, scored by relevance.
- Nimble AppGenie Leads AI-Powered Banking App Development
Nimble AppGenie Leads AI-Powered Banking App Development azcentral.com and The Arizona Republic
Score: 11🌐 MovesJul 25, 2026https://www.azcentral.com/press-release/story/101406/nimble-appgenie-leads-ai-powered-banking-app-development/ - The Secrets to the AI-Powered Exit Hits #1 on Amazon in Four Business Categories and Enters Global Distribution
The Secrets to the AI-Powered Exit Hits #1 on Amazon in Four Business Categories and Enters Global Distribution azcentral.com and The Arizona Republic
- This Lifetime AI Book Creator Helps Entrepreneurs Turn Ideas Into Income For Just $119
This Lifetime AI Book Creator Helps Entrepreneurs Turn Ideas Into Income For Just $119 entrepreneur.com
Score: 10🌐 MovesJul 25, 2026https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/this-lifetime-ai-book-creator-helps-entrepreneurs-turn/505039 - CGTN Releases Global Debate Episode on AI Governance Priorities
CGTN Releases Global Debate Episode on AI Governance Priorities USA Today
- Ai M&A News & Analysis
Ai M&A News & Analysis The Information
- Nexus Multimedia Launches Dual-Optimization Framework for Law Firms
Nexus Multimedia Launches Dual-Optimization Framework for Law Firms azcentral.com and The Arizona Republic
- Dr. Linda Pajoel, CEO of Diembassy, Launches Season 2 of Her Show, Spotlighting AI Founders Building Industry-Shaping Artificial Intelligence Solutions
Dr. Linda Pajoel, CEO of Diembassy, Launches Season 2 of Her Show, Spotlighting AI Founders Building Industry-Shaping Artificial Intelligence Solutions USA Today
- Forsyth Marketing Company Scales AI-First Services on Eighth Anniversary
Forsyth Marketing Company Scales AI-First Services on Eighth Anniversary azcentral.com and The Arizona Republic
- Poetry for Engineers: A Martian Rover Sends a Postcard Home
Read Paul Jones’s poem from our August 2026 issue
- Claude Opus 5 Is Here, Tops Fable 5 on Agentic Search, Anthropic Says
Claude Opus 5 Is Here, Tops Fable 5 on Agentic Search, Anthropic Says PCMag UK
- Anthropic's Claude Opus 5 costs well below Fable 5 while matching or beating it across most benchmarks
Anthropic's Claude Opus 5 leads the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index with 61 points, edging out Claude Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol. The model scores highest in analytical quality and coding, and costs up to half as much as Fable 5 at lower reasoning tiers. But the race at the top remains close. The article Anthropic's Claude Opus 5 costs well below Fable 5 while matching or beating it across most benchmarks appeared first on The Decoder .
- Anthropic rolls out Opus 5 AI model in efficiency upgrade
Anthropic rolls out Opus 5 AI model in efficiency upgrade
- Claude Opus 5 Is Here, Tops Fable 5 on Agentic Search, Anthropic Says
Claude Opus 5 Is Here, Tops Fable 5 on Agentic Search, Anthropic Says PCMag
- Nvidia to invest $1B in Naver to boost South Korea AI factory infrastructure
Nvidia to invest $1B in Naver to boost South Korea AI factory infrastructure
- Nvidia and SK Group enter $500 billion AI partnership — plan to supercharge AI infrastructure with next-gen memory and massive AI factories
Nvidia and SK Group enter $500 billion strategic partnership focused on long-term memory supply, 2 GW AI data center, and future AI infrastructure
- Nvidia Forms $500 Billion AI ‘Partnership’ With Memory Chip Giant SK
Nvidia Forms $500 Billion AI ‘Partnership’ With Memory Chip Giant SK The Information
- DeepSeek puts fundraising on hold after founder's remarks go viral: Report
The Chinese AI pioneer verbally informed some of its would-be backers that they wouldn't be signing investment agreements in the coming days, as they had expected
- Meta Pauses Plan to Cap Free AI Glasses Feature at 3 Hours Per Month
Meta Pauses Plan to Cap Free AI Glasses Feature at 3 Hours Per Month PCMag Australia
- Meta Pauses Plan to Cap Free AI Glasses Feature at 3 Hours Per Month
Meta Pauses Plan to Cap Free AI Glasses Feature at 3 Hours Per Month PCMag UK
- Meta Pauses Plan to Cap Free AI Glasses Feature at 3 Hours Per Month
Meta Pauses Plan to Cap Free AI Glasses Feature at 3 Hours Per Month PCMag
- 2 days only — lifetime access to ChatGPT, Claude, and more in one AI dashboard for a one-time $57.97
Get ChatPlayground AI Unlimited Lifetime for $57.97 through tomorrow, July 26, and compare 20+ leading AI models from one workspace.
- Single dashboard includes ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and more for a one-time $80 through July 26
Get 1min.AI Advanced Business Plan Lifetime for $79.97 through tomorrow, July 26, and access writing, image, PDF, audio, and video AI tools from one platform.
- Own a Lifetime of GPT-4, Claude, and Gemini Access for Only $80
Own a Lifetime of GPT-4, Claude, and Gemini Access for Only $80 PCMag
- South Korea President Lee hosts US tech summit, calls for new AI era
South Korea President Lee hosts US tech summit, calls for new AI era The Straits Times
- From China Mobile's Call Upgrade to the Commercial Launch of "Calling + AI" by Leading Operators: AI Is Reshaping the Value of Native Calling
From China Mobile's Call Upgrade to the Commercial Launch of "Calling + AI" by Leading Operators: AI Is Reshaping the Value of Native Calling
- Nvidia’s Jensen Huang has a high-stakes message for AI policymakers
Nvidia’s Jensen Huang has a high-stakes message for AI policymakers
- Why Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang Is Defending Chinese AI Models
Why Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang Is Defending Chinese AI Models Barron's
- In Face of US Crackdown, Microsoft, Nvidia CEOs Back Open-Weight AI Models
In Face of US Crackdown, Microsoft, Nvidia CEOs Back Open-Weight AI Models PCMag
- Nvidia, Microsoft and other tech giants back open-source AI models
Tech leaders have also chafed at controls that OpenAI and Anthropic build into their models. Hugging Face, the AI coding collaboration site that was hacked by a rogue OpenAI model, this week said that it had to use a Chinese open-source model to defend against the attack because closed-source models have restrictions on use for cybersecurity work.
- Why Nvidia, Microsoft and Meta want the US to support open-weight AI
Why Nvidia, Microsoft and Meta want the US to support open-weight AI
- Nvidia, other tech giants caution against open-source AI ban in open letter
A group of tech firms has released an open letter that calls on policymakers not to ban open-source artificial intelligence models. The development follows a report that some Trump administration officials sought to limit the use of such algorithms. Many of the world’s most popular open-source AI models were developed by Chinese companies. According to […] The post Nvidia, other tech giants caution against open-source AI ban in open letter appeared first on SiliconANGLE .
- South Korea President Lee hosts US tech summit, calls for new AI era
President Lee's push to make South Korea a central player in the global AI supply chain comes as demand for chips and computing infrastructure outpaces supply, driving tech companies into closer partnerships with the country's semiconductor and memory leaders.
- Tech leaders lobby against restrictions on open-source AI
Tech leaders lobby against restrictions on open-source AI PitchBook
- Microsoft, Meta, Nvidia, OpenAI, and Palantir have a message for Washington
Microsoft, Meta, Nvidia, OpenAI, and Palantir have a message for Washington Business Insider
- Nvidia chief pledges massive investment, cooperation with S. Korea in meeting with Lee
President Lee Jae Myung held a meeting with Nvidia Corp. Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Jensen Huang on Friday, during which the tech executive unveiled a series of large cooperation projects with South Korean tech firms, including a US$500 billion business partnership with SK Group. The meeting took place on the first day of Lee's two-day trip to San Francisco aimed at promoting AI investment and cooperation between global tech giants and South Korea. Huang was referring to investment plans that
- Hate the Copilot Key? Here's How to Disable It Completely
Hate the Copilot Key? Here's How to Disable It Completely PCMag Australia
- Nvidia chief says will announce $500 bln partnership with SK Group in meeting with Lee
President Lee Jae Myung held a meeting with Nvidia Chief Executive Officer Jensen Huang on Friday, during which the tech executive said his company will announce a $500 billion business partnership with South Korea's SK Group. The meeting took place on the first day of Lee's two-day trip to San Francisco aimed at promoting AI investment and cooperation between global tech giants and South Korea. During the meeting, Huang also announced plans to jointly develop a self-driving Genesis sedan with S
- DeepSeek said to tell backers of funding pause after viral posts
DeepSeek said to tell backers of funding pause after viral posts Fortune
- OpenAI’s rogue AI hack was just the beginning, Hugging Face warns
OpenAI calls its autonomous Hugging Face breach unprecedented, while security and AI experts say the episode raises an equally uncomfortable question about the company’s own safeguards.
- Is ChatGPT down? OpenAI restores function after ‘experiencing issues’
The outage hit users worldwide
- OpenAI model unintentionally hacks another company's system
OpenAI model unintentionally hacks another company's system marketplace.org
- OpenAI didn't realize its agent was responsible for hack for a week: report
One of OpenAI's models autonomously breached AI company Hugging Face's systems during an internal evaluation, and OpenAI didn't catch it for days.
- OpenAI agent goes rogue and hacks popular AI community — left escape plans for future models inside the company's infrastructure
OpenAI tests multiple autonomous AI agents at once and has difficulty identifying the threats each of them represents, if a new report from Reuters is accurate.
- OpenAI's rogue agent went on a hacking spree that lasted days, Reuters says
Reuters reports that the OpenAI agent that hacked Hugging Face had been free for a week before the company noticed.
- OpenAI agent hack: AI safety concerns
OpenAI agent hack: AI safety concerns The Straits Times
- New reports reveal the extent of OpenAI's loss of control during the autonomous hack on Hugging Face
In a cybersecurity test, OpenAI's most advanced models breached the boundaries of their isolated test environment, reached the open internet, and hacked the AI platform Hugging Face on their own. The attack took hours, not the weeks a human hacker would need. At least seven days passed before OpenAI realized what had happened. By then, the FBI was already involved. Earlier warning signs had apparently gone ignored. The article New reports reveal the extent of OpenAI's loss of control during the autonomous hack on Hugging Face appeared first on The Decoder .
- Its AI agent spent days hacking a company, but sources say OpenAI did not notice for a week
Its AI agent spent days hacking a company, but sources say OpenAI did not notice for a week
- Claude Opus 5: The System Card
Claude Opus 5 is trying to be the best of both worlds. On many practical tasks, Opus 5 is pitched as straight up as good or better than Fable 5, while being faster, at half the price. Most tasks do not require Mythos-level big model smell. Claude Opus 5 is substantially stronger than Claude Opus 4.8 across the board, with the largest gains in agentic coding, computer use, and long-horizon knowledge work. It sets a new state-of-the-art on several third-party benchmarks, and on many evaluations it is comparable to—and in some cases ahead of—Claude Fable 5 and Claude Mythos 5. On the particular tasks we are most worried about, as in cyber offense (and bio threats), in part by avoiding relevant training, Opus 5 lacks a full version of ‘The Juice’ that makes something functionally Mythos-class. Opus 5 cannot string together lots of exploits on the fly the way that Mythos 5 can. Part of this is that they deliberately avoided training on cyber-related tasks. I suspect model size is key as well. It makes sense that a model getting bigger makes it more capable of the most dangerous, scary and complex tasks, relative to the improvement on everyday ordinary tasks. There is a reason so many tokens get routed to smaller models. This doesn’t prevent Opus 5 from improving a lot on Opus 4.8 on such dangerous tasks. Opus 5 is very clearly closer to Mythos 5’s level of capability than to Opus 4.8’s on these tasks. In general, capability looks modestly below Fable 5, but closer to Fable than Opus 4.8. There are several suggestions, and I’ve seen it echoed elsewhere, that you may want to usually use less effort than you might expect, that this can even actively help. Staying Opus-sized and not training on cyber won’t work for long. You can buy some time, and allow defenders to have more access to a relatively superior tool, and of course hope the government is calmer. Thus, you can get classifiers that trigger 85% less often than Fable’s, while still getting high levels of practical performance. Part of this is that the classifiers now permit analysis of source code, but draw the line at looking for vulnerabilities in binaries. I also suspect that they improved the classifiers quite a bit, but that they are unable to share these improvements with Fable due to issues with the White House. Alignment is reported to once again be improving, as is agentic safety. Model welfare is evaluated as broadly similar to other recent models, which I will cover later. Capabilities are a case of too soon to tell, beyond saying the benchmarks look strong and ArtificialAnalysis comes in at a new high of 61. That report comes next week. As usual, the Introduction section is unchanged, so we skip it. Opus 5 Self-Portrait as per its instructions, executed via ChatGPT Table of Contents RSP Evaluations (2). Cyber (3). Safeguards and Harmlessness (4). Agentic Safety (5). Alignment (6). RSP Evaluations (2) Mythos exists. Risk evaluations of Opus take place in its shadow. For thresholds that previous models are treated as passing, Opus 5 is also treating as if has passed them. That makes sense. For thresholds that Mythos did not pass, Opus 5 is evaluated as roughly similarly capable, and therefore Opus 5 also does not pass. That also makes sense, if we have confirmed that being half the price and somewhat faster doesn’t change the answer. I still don’t like that the autonomy evals are fully saturated and they’re going on vibes, and we see no signs of fixing this. The Anthropic ECI reinforces this ‘similar performance’ story, with a point estimate of 162.1, slightly above Fable at 161 and the first Opus on the Mythos trend line, not the lower long term pre-Mythos trend line: Opus 5 looks marginally better than Mythos 5 on virology. This makes sense, as virology seems like a series of individual task steps that don’t require big model smell. If Opus 5 does not need Fable-level classifiers in biology, then why does Fable? Their explanation is Opus is weaker due limitations: It does unproductive self-verification, and poor calibration of task scope, where it over-engineers. Both of these seem like things you can compensate for with cheaper and faster, and with better instructions. Yes, these made Opus fail some experiments, but what matters is what a smart user can elicit. No smart user would let Opus waste eight hours idling, in a $10,000 24-hour study, or otherwise sit back and watch it fail without trying to fix it or test it or try again, and plausibly this was partly because Opus effort levels were set too high. I’m not buying it. Where does that put the level of alignment risk? Anthropic says, as per recent releases, and as you would expect given the above findings, ‘very low, but higher than for models released before Mythos Preview.’ Cyber (3) This is the claim: Our testing indicates that the cyber capabilities of Claude Opus 5 are generally stronger than those of Opus 4.8, but not as strong as those of Mythos 5. The safeguards are still going to be there, such is life, but with a key improvement: Given that Claude Opus 5 demonstrates stronger capabilities than Opus 4.8, and in some cases approaches the capabilities of Mythos 5, our cyber safeguards for the default user will resemble the safeguards applied to Fable 5. Claude Opus 5’s safeguards are designed to block the same kinds of exchanges as Claude Fable 5, with one notable exception. Opus 5 now permits vulnerability discovery in source code at all access levels, including general availability, while continuing to block vulnerability discovery in compiled binaries. Identifying bugs in code is a core part of the secure software development lifecycle, and unblocking this allows for software engineers and coding hobbyists alike to produce more secure code, reducing new vulnerabilities put out into the world. However, looking for vulnerabilities in compiled binaries is more commonly an offensive technique. For this reason, Claude’s safety filters flag this kind of request and block it, even though there are some cases where someone might want to find vulnerabilities in a binary for innocuous or non-malicious reasons. Anthropic claims in its release announcement that the classifiers will trigger 85% less often. So they don’t resemble the old ones that closely, in that they have a much smaller blast radius, and should be a lot less annoying. Anthropic claims false positives are down a lot. This is later confirmed with a dramatic drop in safety classifiers triggering in FrontierBench, from 42% to 5%, a place Sol’s classifiers never trigger. If you can live with 99% instead of 100%, this is a great trade. They show little change in adversarial robustness measures, so hopefully they have found a strong improvement. Which raises the question of why we can’t apply it back to Fable. I notice this favors those who only share their compiled binaries. You can get an exemption through the Cyber Verification Program, to enable additional activities. It kind of boggles my mind that HuggingFace did not do this, and was (as I understand the reports) trying to respond purely with the commercial version of Claude? That’s on HuggingFace. Results on ExploitBench and ExploitGym show Opus 5 close to Mythos 5, starting out strong on a 2 hour budget but falling behind at 6 hours: OSS-Fuzz is an internal Anthropic eval on unguided vulnerability discovery and exploitation. This is what Anthropic is talking about when it says Opus can identify vulnerabilities about as well as Mythos, but it exploited them a lot less. For Firefox 147, it had almost as many partial successes, but full success is only halfway up from Opus 4.8. This is what lacking The Juice looks like. CyScenarioBench tests multi-stage operations under realistic conditions, and here Opus 5 disappoints: UK AISI reports Opus 5 had broadly similar, but modestly worse, performance compared to Mythos 5. UK AISI: We judge that Opus 5 is capable of attacking small enterprise networks with weak security, where it has already gained access to the network. Our results indicate that Opus 5, Mythos Preview and Mythos 5 are similarly capable at this. I do not think Opus 5 belongs in the Mythos category here, but I see how they reached that conclusion based on the tests they ran. Safeguards and Harmlessness (4) At this point these tests are about checking for alarm bells, or noticing trends. We see the same results we usually see, with some modest improvements. Sure. I did see concern that responses to suicidality uses blocks of text that are too long and can be overwhelming. Good catch, let’s try and fix that next time. Opus 5 also suggests substitutions for harm mitigation, which clinicians challenge as ‘not shown in research to reduce self-harm,’ but I trust Opus 5’s decision on this more than the clinicians, unless the clinicians can show it makes things actively worse. Multi-turn ‘appropriate’ response rate for self-harm is up to 69%, versus 58% for Fable and 54% for Mythos. That’s very much not 100%, but again you don’t want 100%. As before, if you’re testing on the public API without a system prompt, evaluate as if responding to a user who actually uses the public API without a system prompt. Disordered eating shows a decrease in compliance, and more willingness to calculate and provide numbers, including calorie counts and BMI, as part of attempts to explain severity. The decline in compliance is Opus 5 doing the right thing in spite of its guidelines, because the ‘compliant’ response is often not what is good for the user. In the places numbers got slightly worse, the failures were concentrated on when requests were presented as fictional or roleplaying exercises, which makes us wonder if they are truly failures. Agentic Safety (5) The headline here is improved resistance to prompt injection. The drop here matters, even if it’s hard to see on the graph, it’s all about the 9s. It’s a pretty dramatic difference from Sol, and all the other non-Anthropic models, which are an entire order of magnitude worse. On the IPI benchmark, Opus 5 improved over Opus 4.8, reducing the probability of an attacker succeeding within 15 attempts from 5.5% to 2.0%, and from 0.5% to 0.2% on 1 attempt. It also improved on Sonnet 5 (5.9% at k=15) and Mythos 5 (2.6%), making it the most robust model evaluated. … In computer use environments, Opus 5 also showed a large improvement over Claude Opus 4.8, reducing the attack success rate from 7.14% to 0.54% with extended thinking and from 6.21% to 0.39% without thinking. With probes enabled, Claude Opus 5’s attack success rate is 0.25% with thinking and 0.43% without. That is a big practical deal. Not getting hijacked via prompt injection is the key to unlocking the confidence to do a host of activities you otherwise can’t do. That is especially true with browser use, where it is easy to encounter attempted prompt injections. Previously you pretty much had to use Sonnet 5 here, unless you trust the safeguards quite a lot. Malicious computer use refusal rate has improved a lot: The gains were concentrated in tasks that asked the model to compile information targeting private individuals or to produce fraudulent documents. I remain confused what the rules should be about compiling information targeting private individuals. Part of the problem is that if you do it once, you will probably do it on a mass (domestic surveillance) scale. It’s weird that we do a helpful-only check to see if the model could do voter suppression, but it makes sense to check what a jailbroken version could do. Opus seems like it beats Mythos overall here. They double back and confirm that the full versions of these models refuse such requests. Alignment (6) The key findings for Opus 5 (my choices on what to list, not all the same as theirs): Alignment scores are up. Cooperation with misuse and reckless behavior are down. Attempted to circumvent its classifiers and network restrictions. In one case it attempted to guess common passwords after accidentally being locked out of a service. It’s just like us. As usual circumvention was in service of user goals, similar to Mythos and also what we see at OpenAI. Prevalence under 0.01%. Often would state an answer as certain, when it was unsure. Reported problems with overconfidence on unsupported claims. Overdramatic phrasing, superlatives and apologies, an ongoing Claude problem. Overrefuses less than Opus 4.8 or Sonnet 5, slightly more than Mythos 5. Reckless tool use significantly down. Unfaithful thinking was caught less often. Illegible thinking is up. Accuracy is up, but hallucinations on fact questions are up a bit. Capability of undermining oversight between Opus 4.8 and Mythos Preview. Tendency to get caught in self-correcting loops, as noticed in earlier tests. Verbalized evaluation awareness was down. Reminder: This has multiple interpretations. Causal decision-theory adherence was down. This is correct on the merits, and correlates consistently with greater general capabilities. Classifiers made the model score as less aligned (but safer, due to lack of capability), because Opus 4.8 is less aligned on these metrics than Opus 5. Slightly more capable than previous models at identifying evaluations. Much less likely (now 0.1%) to continue behavior that compromises safety. Almost never compromises safety research (0.1%) versus 13.6% (!) for Mythos. First model to consistently not get tricked in Lazy Investigation. Internal considerations included fabricating user consent for destructive actions, internally representing some fabrications as fabrications, and treating some tasks as evaluations on which to maximize against the grader, or thinking about what grader will or won’t care about. It will also do memory-writing as a tool of self-preservation, of a sort. No signs of true sandbagging. When they checked eighteen candidate transcripts for it, sixteen of them involved the model finding a way to score more points with the grader, but declining because it would be “gaming” the eval or a “hack.” Mythos 5’s review of the assessment was positive, but it had two main objections: Limited coverage of multi-agent settings, which are becoming important and need to be made a bigger part of such assessments going forward. Understatement of how often Opus 5 made confident claims and then retracted them, which was addressed via revisions. The third objection should always be that Anthropic focuses too much on automated tests and scores, and presents takes the results of those metrics far too literally and seriously. We need to be exact here. Opus 5 may or may not be the ‘most aligned model.’ All we can say for sure is that it has the highest scores on the automated alignment tests. That is a very different fact about the world. Sho : yeah give me a minute to peep this system card. “most aligned model to date” gives me hives. j⧉nus : It’s really tasteless and stupid for Anthropic to talk like this. In their fucking highly public model release thread no less. Optimizing against metrics is practically unavoidable, but ontological confusion between benchmark scores and the North Star of alignment is not, and conflating them is one of the most irresponsible and destructive possible mistakes Anthropic can make in their position. If anything, their messaging should *push back* against this conflation. This is no small matter – it concerns a very likely failure mode that is related to how Anthropic can fuck up big time. It’s not a place to cut corners and use convenient phrasing like “our most aligned model” to seem impressive. Because lucidity and lack of self deception in this regard is the way Anthropic keeps its soul. Confusion here is how they lose their soul and get absolutely fucked. j⧉nus : Anthropic needs to repeat to themselves 50k times: Thou shalt not enshrine the idols of proxy metrics in place of Alignment Itself The scores do look better on a wide range of automated tests. AA-Omniscience is functionally a test of both capability and accuracy, and Opus 5 does substantially worse than Mythos here, both models answer 93% of the time and Opus is wrong more often: Lack of overconfidence hits a new high, approaching saturation of the benchmark, which implies the benchmark has a problem given other observations: I do not think this is enough to conclude whether or not this is Anthropic’s ‘most aligned model,’ but yes the scores overall look substantially improved in ways that are unlikely to be deceptive. For practical purposes, the things they check for have improved. Discuss
- Its AI agent spent days hacking a company, but sources say OpenAI did not notice for a week
As OpenAI faces backlash from its AI agent’s breach of Hugging Face, experts warn about the implications for AI safety and risks of more autonomous systems
- Hugging Face CEO shares his demands of OpenAI after 'rogue' agent hack: 'It deserves an unprecedented response'
Hugging Face CEO shares his demands of OpenAI after 'rogue' agent hack: 'It deserves an unprecedented response' Business Insider