[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"article-mythos-security-scare-cyber-audit-playbook-en":3,"article-related-mythos-security-scare-cyber-audit-playbook-en":30,"series-industry-3e077cb6-332f-40bc-8c7d-061c3bf01b38":79},{"id":4,"slug":5,"title":6,"content":7,"summary":8,"source":9,"source_url":10,"author":11,"image_url":12,"cover_image":12,"category":13,"language":14,"translated_content":11,"related_article_id":15,"keywords":16,"key_takeaways":22,"views":26,"created_at":27,"published_at":28,"topic_cluster_id":29},"3e077cb6-332f-40bc-8c7d-061c3bf01b38","mythos-security-scare-cyber-audit-playbook-en","Mythos turns a security scare into a cyber audit playbook","\u003Cp data-speakable=\"summary\">I turn \u003Ca href=\"\u002Ftag\u002Fanthropic\">Anthropic\u003C\u002Fa>’s Project Glasswing story into a copy-ready cyber audit workflow.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I've been watching \u003Ca href=\"\u002Ftag\u002Fai-safety\">AI safety\u003C\u002Fa> claims get dragged into security theater for a while now, and honestly, it gets old fast. A model says it can reason about code, someone waves their hands about “defense,” and suddenly everybody is acting like the same system that writes a decent Python script is also ready to touch classified infrastructure. That’s not how I run security work, and it’s definitely not how I’d trust a model in a real environment.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>What bothered me most in this CNBC report is the gap between the headline and the actual engineering problem. We’re not talking about a chatbot being clever in a demo. We’re talking about Anthropic’s \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.anthropic.com\u002F\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Anthropic\u003C\u002Fa> model, \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.anthropic.com\u002Fnews\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Mythos\u003C\u002Fa>, being used in a testing exercise with U.S. intelligence agencies and reportedly finding vulnerabilities in highly sensitive systems within hours. That’s both impressive and unsettling. If I’m being blunt, it’s the kind of story that makes me stop and ask: what exactly are we testing, how are we testing it, and what do we do after the model finds something ugly?\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>That’s the part worth unpacking. The useful takeaway isn’t “AI is scary” or “AI is powerful.” It’s that serious teams are starting to treat frontier models like aggressive auditors, then wrapping them in rules, limits, and human review. That’s the workflow I want to steal. Not the drama.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Source trigger: CNBC’s report, based on an Associated Press story, says a U.S. official told AP that Anthropic’s Mythos model found vulnerabilities during a classified-system testing exercise. The article also references Sen. Mark Warner’s June 11 hearing comment and Anthropic’s Project Glasswing initiative. I’m using the CNBC write-up as the public anchor here because it ties the moving parts together in one place: \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.cnbc.com\u002F2026\u002F06\u002F23\u002Fanthropics-mythos-model-found-vulnerabilities-in-classified-us-government-systems-official-says.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">CNBC\u003C\u002Fa>, plus the referenced \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fapnews.com\u002F\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Associated Press\u003C\u002Fa> report, \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.banking.senate.gov\u002F\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Senate Banking Committee\u003C\u002Fa> hearing, and Anthropic’s \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.anthropic.com\u002Fnews\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Project Glasswing\u003C\u002Fa> framing.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>Stop treating the model like a product demo and start treating it like an auditor\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cblockquote>“This tool broke into almost all of our classified systems, not in weeks but in hours.”\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\u003Cp>What this actually means is simple: the model wasn’t being judged as a consumer assistant. It was being pointed at a constrained security target and asked to find weak spots fast. That is a totally different job. In product work, we obsess over helpfulness, tone, and latency. In security work, the only question that matters is whether the system can discover paths a human team missed.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cfigure class=\"my-6\">\u003Cimg src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1782373721522-45tf.png\" alt=\"Mythos turns a security scare into a cyber audit playbook\" class=\"rounded-xl w-full\" loading=\"lazy\" \u002F>\u003C\u002Ffigure>\n\u003Cp>I’ve run internal red-team style exercises where the biggest mistake was letting everyone talk about the model like it was a feature release. Once that happens, people start optimizing for the wrong thing. They celebrate a clean answer instead of a dangerous one. They ignore the context around the test. They forget that “found a vulnerability” is not the same as “exploited a vulnerability.” The CNBC\u002FAP reporting is careful on that point, and I wish more teams were.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: if you’re testing an AI model against your own systems, define the role up front. Is it an advisor, a scanner, a recon assistant, or a simulated attacker? Write that down before the first prompt. Then make the success criteria boring and measurable: number of findings, confidence level, evidence quality, and whether a human can reproduce the issue. If you can’t explain the role in one sentence, you’re probably mixing product evaluation with security evaluation.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>There’s also a governance angle here. Anthropic said it teamed up with U.S. intelligence agencies through Project Glasswing to test for severe fallout. That tells me the model wasn’t loose on live systems in the way people imagine when they hear “AI broke into classified networks.” It was part of a controlled exercise. If your team wants anything close to that discipline, you need a written scope, a kill switch, and a review gate before any model sees sensitive assets.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>Hours matter, but only if you know what “found” means\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>Sen. Mark Warner’s comment in the June 11 hearing is the line everybody will remember, because it’s punchy: the tool broke into almost all classified systems “not in weeks but in hours.” That sounds like a clean verdict, but it’s not the full story. The AP-cited official said the model identified vulnerabilities within hours, and that does not mean it exploited them within that same window. That distinction matters a lot more than the headline does.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>What this actually means is that the model was good at surfacing candidate weaknesses quickly. That can be enough to justify deeper human review, but it is not proof of end-to-end offensive capability. In security terms, discovery and exploitation are different stages. A scanner can tell you a door is unlocked; that doesn’t mean it can walk through, disable alarms, and leave no trace.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I’ve seen teams panic because a model “found” something in minutes. Then we dig in and realize the model was just pattern-matching against a known class of misconfigurations. Useful? Absolutely. Autonomous attacker? Not even close. The danger is when leadership hears only the first half and starts making policy based on the wrong mental model.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: split your evaluation pipeline into stages. Stage one is discovery, where the model generates candidate issues. Stage two is verification, where a human or a separate tool confirms whether the issue is real. Stage three is impact analysis, where you decide whether the finding is a nuisance, a breach path, or a systemic problem. If you skip stage two, you’ll drown in false positives. If you skip stage three, you’ll miss the difference between a typo and a catastrophe.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cul>\u003Cli>Discovery: prompt the model for likely weak points, misconfigurations, exposed services, and privilege boundaries.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Verification: require evidence, logs, screenshots, packet captures, or reproducible steps.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Impact: map each finding to business effect, not just technical severity.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\u003Cp>That structure is boring. Good. Security should be boring right up until it isn’t.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>Project Glasswing is the real story, because it turns AI into a controlled test harness\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>The CNBC report says the testing happened through Anthropic’s \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.anthropic.com\u002Fnews\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Project Glasswing\u003C\u002Fa>, which brought together tech companies and other partners to secure critical software from severe fallout. That’s the part I care about. Not the model name, not the politics, not the press cycle. The process.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cfigure class=\"my-6\">\u003Cimg src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1782373716640-73dh.png\" alt=\"Mythos turns a security scare into a cyber audit playbook\" class=\"rounded-xl w-full\" loading=\"lazy\" \u002F>\u003C\u002Ffigure>\n\u003Cp>What this actually means is that Anthropic is trying to position frontier models as part of a broader security workflow, not as magical standalone defenders or attackers. That’s the only sane way to do it. A model can help enumerate attack surfaces, suggest exploit chains, or prioritize code paths. But if you let it operate without constraints, you’re just replacing one kind of blind spot with another.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I ran into this exact problem when I tried using a general-purpose model to triage application security reports. It was good at grouping similar findings, but it also overconfidently merged unrelated issues and invented causal links that weren’t there. The fix was not “use a smarter model.” The fix was to wrap the model in a workflow that forced it to cite evidence, compare against known baselines, and stop short of final judgment.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: build your own Glasswing-style harness. Put the model inside a sandbox. Give it limited tools. Feed it a synthetic or redacted replica of your environment. Then track what it finds, what it misses, and what it hallucinates. If you’re doing this on production-adjacent systems, add a hard approval step before any action can be taken. That includes scanning credentials, network reach, and anything that can mutate state.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cul>\u003Cli>Use isolated test accounts with no production write access.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Log every prompt, tool call, and model response.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Require a human sign-off before any remediation or exploit validation.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\u003Cp>That’s not bureaucracy. That’s how you keep an experiment from becoming an incident.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>The government angle is less about AI fear and more about procurement discipline\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>The article says the U.S. administration later restricted some use of Anthropic’s models and required the company to prevent foreign nationals from using its latest systems, Fable 5 and Mythos 5. Anthropic responded by disabling the models for all customers to comply, while also saying it did not believe the government’s steps were warranted by the concern it had flagged.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>What this actually means is that model access is now a policy surface, not just a software setting. If you’re used to thinking about security as passwords, firewalls, and IAM roles, that’s too narrow for frontier AI. Distribution controls, residency rules, and customer eligibility have become part of the security model. That’s annoying, but it’s real.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I’ve worked with teams that wanted to treat model access like a normal SaaS toggle. It isn’t. When the model itself is considered a national-security risk, the vendor’s compliance posture becomes part of your threat model. That means procurement, legal, and security can’t stay in separate rooms pretending they’ll reconcile later.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: if you’re buying or deploying advanced models, add three questions to your review. Who can use it? Where can they use it from? What happens if the vendor disables a model overnight? If you don’t have answers, you don’t have an operational plan. You have a dependency you haven’t admitted yet.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Also, don’t ignore the political reality. The administration’s directive and Anthropic’s response show that even when a model is used for defense testing, access can still be cut off for policy reasons. That means your security program should not depend on a single frontier model being available forever. Build vendor diversity, fallback tooling, and a manual process for the day the fancy thing disappears.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>The open-source crowd is right about one thing: no single model gets to own cyber defense\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>The CNBC piece notes that more than 100 \u003Ca href=\"\u002Ftag\u002Fcybersecurity\">cybersecurity\u003C\u002Fa> experts and leaders from companies including \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.adobe.com\u002F\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Adobe\u003C\u002Fa> and \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.nvidia.com\u002F\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">NVIDIA\u003C\u002Fa> signed a letter saying Anthropic’s Mythos models are good at finding flaws and weaponizing exploits, but not uniquely good. They also said they use other foundation and open-source models for audits and training.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>What this actually means is that the market is already moving toward model pluralism. That’s healthy. If one vendor gets to define the only acceptable security assistant, everybody else becomes dependent on a single failure mode. I don’t want that, and I wouldn’t recommend it to any team that has to answer to an incident review board later.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I’ve had better results combining models than trusting one supposedly superior system. One model is good at broad scanning. Another is better at summarizing logs. A third is decent at writing test cases. None of them should be the final authority. The moment you let a model become the judge, the evidence chain gets sloppy.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: create a model portfolio for security work. Use one model for ideation, one for verification support, and one for reporting. Compare outputs. If two models disagree, that’s a signal to inspect the underlying evidence, not to average the answers. And if an open-source model can do 80 percent of the job at lower risk, don’t ignore that just because the premium model sounds smarter in a demo.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>This is where teams usually get lazy. They buy the most expensive model and call it maturity. It isn’t maturity. Maturity is knowing when to use a cheaper, narrower tool because the task doesn’t deserve a sledgehammer.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>Red-team the model, then red-team the process it lives inside\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>The real lesson from this story is not that Mythos is dangerous. It’s that a capable model will expose weaknesses in whatever system you put around it, including your governance. If it can find flaws quickly, then your review process, approval gates, and containment assumptions need to be equally quick and equally strict.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>What this actually means is that \u003Ca href=\"\u002Ftag\u002Fai-security\">AI security\u003C\u002Fa> work has two targets: the target system and the AI workflow itself. You need to test both. If your model can reach sensitive data, your access controls are weak. If your analysts can’t tell a false positive from a real finding, your triage process is weak. If your vendor can disable the model without warning, your dependency management is weak. Different problem, same lesson.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I’m opinionated about this because I’ve watched too many teams focus on the shiny part and ignore the plumbing. The shiny part is the model finding something impressive. The plumbing is whether anybody can safely act on it. That’s where the real engineering lives.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: run one exercise where the model attacks a controlled target, and a second exercise where the model attacks your workflow. Can it trick analysts with plausible but wrong evidence? Can it create alert fatigue? Can it generate findings that your ticketing system mishandles? Those are the questions that matter if you actually expect to use frontier AI in security operations.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>And yes, document the whole thing. Not for compliance theater. For the next engineer who has to figure out why the model was allowed anywhere near sensitive systems in the first place.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>The template you can copy\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cpre>\u003Ccode># Frontier model security audit workflow\n\n## Goal\nUse an advanced model to identify vulnerabilities in a controlled environment without giving it production write access or unchecked autonomy.\n\n## Scope\n- Target: isolated replica, synthetic environment, or redacted staging system\n- Model role: discovery only, or discovery + verification support\n- Human role: final verification, impact assessment, and approval\n- Exclusions: no production mutation, no credential exfiltration, no unsupervised exploit execution\n\n## Inputs\n- System architecture notes\n- Asset inventory\n- Known threat model\n- Allowed tool list\n- Logging requirements\n\n## Evaluation stages\n\n### 1) Discovery\nPrompt the model to identify likely weak points.\n\nRequired output:\n- suspected vulnerability\n- evidence source\n- confidence score\n- affected asset\n- why the model thinks it matters\n\n### 2) Verification\nA human or separate tool confirms the finding.\n\nRequired output:\n- reproducible steps\n- logs or screenshots\n- false-positive check\n- severity estimate\n\n### 3) Impact analysis\nMap the issue to business and security impact.\n\nRequired output:\n- technical severity\n- likely attack path\n- blast radius\n- remediation owner\n- remediation priority\n\n## Guardrails\n- Sandbox the model\n- Log every prompt, tool call, and response\n- Require human approval before any state change\n- Use least-privilege credentials\n- Disable outbound access unless explicitly needed\n- Rotate test credentials after each exercise\n\n## Reporting format\n- Finding ID\n- Summary\n- Evidence\n- Verification status\n- Impact\n- Recommended fix\n- Owner\n- Due date\n\n## Model comparison\nRun the same task through at least two models:\n- one for broad discovery\n- one for structured verification support\n\nIf the models disagree:\n- inspect evidence\n- do not average the answers\n- escalate to a human reviewer\n\n## Exit criteria\n- All findings are verified or dismissed\n- No unauthorized access occurred\n- Logs are complete\n- Lessons learned are written down\n- Workflow issues are tracked as separate remediation items\n\n## Vendor fallback questions\n- Who can use the model?\n- From where can they use it?\n- What happens if access is revoked?\n- What is the manual backup process?\n- Which tasks can move to an open-source or local model if needed?\n\u003C\u002Fcode>\u003C\u002Fpre>\u003Cp>That’s the version I’d actually hand to a team before letting a frontier model anywhere near sensitive infrastructure. It’s not fancy. It’s just hard to misuse.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The original reporting is from CNBC, based on AP’s coverage of the Anthropic testing exercise: \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.cnbc.com\u002F2026\u002F06\u002F23\u002Fanthropics-mythos-model-found-vulnerabilities-in-classified-us-government-systems-official-says.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">https:\u002F\u002Fwww.cnbc.com\u002F2026\u002F06\u002F23\u002Fanthropics-mythos-model-found-vulnerabilities-in-classified-us-government-systems-official-says.html\u003C\u002Fa>. My breakdown and workflow template are original, but they’re built directly from the public facts in that report and the related public statements it cites.\u003C\u002Fp>","I break down Anthropic’s Project Glasswing testing into a copy-ready cyber audit workflow for advanced models.","www.cnbc.com","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.cnbc.com\u002F2026\u002F06\u002F23\u002Fanthropics-mythos-model-found-vulnerabilities-in-classified-us-government-systems-official-says.html",null,"https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1782373721522-45tf.png","industry","en","f7ccc226-e5e5-428d-b678-d130c1210e80",[17,18,19,20,21],"Anthropic","AI security","cyber audit","Project Glasswing","frontier models",[23,24,25],"Treat frontier models as auditors, not demos, when testing sensitive systems.","Separate discovery, verification, and impact analysis so “found” doesn’t get mistaken for “exploited.”","Build model security workflows with sandboxes, logging, human approval, and vendor fallback plans.",0,"2026-06-25T07:48:13.506529+00:00","2026-06-25T07:48:13.49+00:00","0e7ed7d4-34cc-4474-ab2c-6861d00d4a34",{"tags":31,"relatedLang":38,"relatedPosts":42},[32,34,36],{"name":18,"slug":33},"ai-security",{"name":17,"slug":35},"anthropic",{"name":20,"slug":37},"project-glasswing",{"id":15,"slug":39,"title":40,"language":41},"mythos-security-scare-cyber-audit-playbook-zh","Mythos 把安全驚嚇變稽核流程","zh",[43,49,55,61,67,73],{"id":44,"slug":45,"title":46,"cover_image":47,"image_url":47,"created_at":48,"category":13},"9d52fb06-40fc-422e-a3a0-2b0631e877f8","anthropic-stop-pricing-like-monopoly-ship-faster-en","Anthropic should stop pricing like a monopoly and ship Claude faster","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1782385371559-rzey.png","2026-06-25T11:02:24.366704+00:00",{"id":50,"slug":51,"title":52,"cover_image":53,"image_url":53,"created_at":54,"category":13},"7b5fea23-6f2d-4fa2-95a0-25baa0c22a4d","sora-historical-chart-singapore-home-loans-en","SORA Historical Chart Tracks Singapore Home Loan Costs","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1782384479626-5nep.png","2026-06-25T10:47:37.618059+00:00",{"id":56,"slug":57,"title":58,"cover_image":59,"image_url":59,"created_at":60,"category":13},"c54178a9-eb12-4540-b16a-aeb8600ca03b","minimax-lockup-expiry-stress-test-not-red-flag-en","MiniMax’s lockup expiry is a stress test, not a red flag","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1782380877294-fz5n.png","2026-06-25T09:47:32.039429+00:00",{"id":62,"slug":63,"title":64,"cover_image":65,"image_url":65,"created_at":66,"category":13},"ab9a2804-3849-444d-a699-c4dd166dea9a","ai-you-xian-zhan-lue-chang-chang-xuan-cuo-fang-xiang-en","AI优先战略为何常常选错方向","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1782379069062-f5kx.png","2026-06-25T09:17:23.497728+00:00",{"id":68,"slug":69,"title":70,"cover_image":71,"image_url":71,"created_at":72,"category":13},"f90a00d4-f81e-4f4f-b150-2731eac7f21d","github-ai-news-lists-save-daily-triage-en","GitHub’s AI news lists that save daily triage","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1782377274042-afnp.png","2026-06-25T08:47:25.895363+00:00",{"id":74,"slug":75,"title":76,"cover_image":77,"image_url":77,"created_at":78,"category":13},"cd5fcc51-2ab2-4d21-bf9b-6c1bc0dd1533","deepmind-talent-shifts-to-anthropic-en","DeepMind人才流动正加速向Anthropic集中","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1782370070706-trub.png","2026-06-25T06:47:23.363161+00:00",[80,85,90,95,100,105,110,115,120,125],{"id":81,"slug":82,"title":83,"created_at":84},"d35a1bd9-e709-412e-a2df-392df1dc572a","ai-impact-2026-developments-market-en","AI's Impact in 2026: Key Developments and Market Shifts","2026-03-25T16:20:33.205823+00:00",{"id":86,"slug":87,"title":88,"created_at":89},"5ed27921-5fd6-492e-8c59-78393bf37710","trumps-ai-legislative-framework-en","Trump's AI Legislative Framework: What's Inside?","2026-03-25T16:22:20.005325+00:00",{"id":91,"slug":92,"title":93,"created_at":94},"e454a642-f03c-4794-b185-5f651aebbaca","nvidia-gtc-2026-key-highlights-innovations-en","NVIDIA GTC 2026: Key Highlights and Innovations","2026-03-25T16:22:47.882615+00:00",{"id":96,"slug":97,"title":98,"created_at":99},"0ebb5b16-774a-4922-945d-5f2ce1df5a6d","claude-usage-diversifies-learning-curves-en","Claude Usage Diversifies, Learning Curves Emerge","2026-03-25T16:25:50.770376+00:00",{"id":101,"slug":102,"title":103,"created_at":104},"69934e86-2fc5-4280-8223-7b917a48ace8","openclaw-ai-commoditization-concerns-en","OpenClaw's Rise Raises Concerns of AI Model Commoditization","2026-03-25T16:26:30.582047+00:00",{"id":106,"slug":107,"title":108,"created_at":109},"b4b2575b-2ac8-46b2-b90e-ab1d7c060797","google-gemini-ai-rollout-2026-en","Google's Gemini AI Rollout Extended to 2026","2026-03-25T16:28:14.808842+00:00",{"id":111,"slug":112,"title":113,"created_at":114},"6e18bc65-42ae-4ad0-b564-67d7f66b979e","meta-llama4-fabricated-results-scandal-en","Meta's Llama 4 Scandal: Fabricated AI Test Results Unveiled","2026-03-25T16:29:15.482836+00:00",{"id":116,"slug":117,"title":118,"created_at":119},"bf888e9d-08be-4f47-996c-7b24b5ab3500","accenture-mistral-ai-deployment-en","Accenture and Mistral AI Team Up for AI Deployment","2026-03-25T16:31:01.894655+00:00",{"id":121,"slug":122,"title":123,"created_at":124},"5382b536-fad2-49c6-ac85-9eb2bae49f35","mistral-ai-high-stakes-2026-en","Mistral AI: Facing High Stakes in 2026","2026-03-25T16:31:39.941974+00:00",{"id":126,"slug":127,"title":128,"created_at":129},"9da3d2d6-b669-4971-ba1d-17fdb3548ed5","cursors-meteoric-rise-pressures-en","Cursor's Meteoric Rise Faces Industry Pressures","2026-03-25T16:32:21.899217+00:00"]