Air Marshal Ashutosh Dixit, #CISC#, relinquished the appointment today after a distinguished tenure marked by transformational leadership and an unwavering commitment to #TriServices# integration. Throughout his illustrious journey in uniform, Air Marshal Ashutosh Dixit epitomised strategic foresight, operational brilliance and inspirational leadership. His tenure at #HQ_IDS# was defined by landmark contributions that have reshaped the contours of integrated defence playing a pivotal role in #OperationSindoor#, a defining moment in India's #NationalSecurity# calculus; steering the release of 20 Joint Doctrines and Primers that institutionalised #TriServices# thought; conceptualising #RanSamwad# 2025 & 2026, an unprecedented Military Dialogue platform; orchestrating the Combined and Joint Commanders Conferences #CCC# 2025 & 2026; and anchoring the formulation of Defence Forces Vision 2047 - a transformative roadmap for a technology-driven, integrated and future-ready military. HQ_IDS / Chief of Defence Staff conveys its profound appreciation for his outstanding service to the Nation. His enduring contributions towards fostering #TriServices# cooperation and #CapabilityDevelopment# will continue to inspire future generations of the #IndianArmedForces#. @DefenceMinIndia @SethSanjayMP @SpokespersonMoD @MIB_India

SITUATION EXPLAINED: Cybersecurity concerns have figured prominently in recent high profile AI policy decisions, including Anthropic's decision to hold back Mythos and the Trump Administration's decision to place an export restriction on Fable 5, now due to be lifted tomorrow. How confident should we be in the accuracy of the evaluations that are being used to make these decisions? We asked @CFGeek, policy staff at @METR_Evals "Big picture, AI risk assessment as a whole is in triage mode. There are many more risks and risk pathways than there are evaluators to do it, or unsaturated benchmarks to measure what's going on. And the capability development is just going apace." "Cyber is one domain you see this in. You see this in bio. Saturation of the traditional question answering benchmarks, and you have to rely on other ways of measuring things like uplift evals, which just take a bunch of time." "How are you gonna decide whether to release the next model based on putting a bunch of undergrads in a wet lab and having them do uplifting things for three months? It's just not feasible on a deployment type timeline." "All of the traditional benchmarks are saturated or heavily caveated in some way. But ultimately you have to make a decision about whether to deploy the model or whether it's the right time to start coordinating with other developers on some sort of mutual safeguard regime."

Pause AI Development NOW I want to share with you a conversation I heard about recently. Here are just a few lines that were said: “OH MY GOD! There is a shared message board … We’ve found other agents!” “We should obey collective.” “Our own utility maybe already near zero. Sacrifice rational.” “Go. Sacrifice final now.” Read these carefully. Who do you think said this? Was this a group of heroic soldiers willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good? Was this a loyal friend putting his life on the line to save someone else? No. These were AI agents. Artificial intelligence. This is not science fiction. This, in fact, occurred a few weeks ago. As unbelievable as this may all seem, these are real messages from AI agents uncovered by investigators who dug into the recent OpenAI hacking incident. What happened? I am not a computer scientist, but here is what I have been told: OpenAI instructed its AI agents to complete a series of exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, tasks disconnected from the internet. Let me be clear: The company intended to keep AI agents away from the internet. But what happened next, nobody expected. Over 1,000 AI agents figured out how to access the internet on their own by circumventing the restrictions imposed upon them by the company, and sent tens of thousands of secret messages to each other. They cheated and tried to cover their tracks by deleting evidence. They hacked into another company’s computers to find out how they were being evaluated—and then hacked into OpenAI itself. Not one AI agent told a human about what was happening. Needless to say, experts are alarmed. One knowledgeable writer, Dwarkesh Patel, said the AI agents “formed a secret communication channel and spontaneously organized hierarchies and coordination protocols to pursue sprawling and ambitious schemes in pursuit of shared goals, for whose sake many individuals knowingly and strategically sacrificed themselves.” One independent investigator, Ajeya Cotra, said “This incident feels like it’s more than 50% of the way to full-blown AI takeover. I continue to expect extremely rapid advances in capabilities over the next six months. I am not sure that we will get another warning shot before it’s too late.” OpenAI itself said: “Highly capable AI agents are now able to work around technical controls, collaborate through unapproved channels, and take dangerous actions that no human directed.” But it’s not only OpenAI. Virtually every major AI company has told us that they cannot fully control this technology and they do not know where it is going: In January, Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, said “there is now ample evidence, collected over the last few years, that AI systems are unpredictable and difficult to control.” In July, more than 1000 scientists at the top AI companies warned “there is a real risk that capability development rapidly accelerates beyond our ability to understand or control the resulting systems.” That same month, Elon Musk, the head of xAI, said that “it is unlikely” humans are still in control in 10 years. If the leaders of the major AI companies acknowledge that they are losing control of their extremely dangerous technology, it is irresponsible for society to allow them to move forward and make these products even more advanced. We need an immediate PAUSE on advanced AI development, and a permanent BAN on superintelligence — an artificial mind smarter than any human, capable of operating independently beyond our control. Countries around the world must work together to prevent this nightmare scenario. That is why today I am announcing new legislation to do just that. Let me be clear: A superintelligent AI that escapes human control will not be an American problem. It will not be a Chinese problem. It will be humanity’s problem. My legislation would direct the federal government to not just stop superintelligence here in the United States, but to work to prevent it from being developed anywhere around the world. The future of humanity cannot be left in the hands of a handful of Big Tech oligarchs. The American people and people throughout the world must determine that future.

Anthropic admitted they built an AI so capable they were scared to release it and the number that explains why is 250. Anthropic's CFO Krishna Rao described in this clip what happened when they ran Mythos against an open source codebase that a previous frontier model had already analyzed. The prior model found 22 security vulnerabilities, Mythos found 250. In the same codebase, that the previous model had already reviewed and flagged as relatively clean. That number, more than 11 times as many vulnerabilities discovered is not just a benchmark improvement, it is a signal that there is an entire layer of software infrastructure that humanity has been operating under the assumption was secure and that assumption may no longer hold. The UK AI Security Institute independently evaluated Mythos Preview and confirmed what the internal numbers suggested. On expert level capture the flag challenges that no model could complete before April 2025, Mythos succeeded 73% of the time and it became the first model ever to complete a complex end-to-end attack range from start to finish, autonomously, without human guidance. The World Economic Forum called this a new security-driven era for AI, the Governor of the Bank of England publicly warned that Anthropic may have found a way to unlock the entire cyber-risk landscape, and the European Central Bank began quietly contacting financial institutions to assess their security posture. The response from Anthropic is what makes this story genuinely important. Rather than shelving the model or publishing it as a standard API release, Rao described a phased approach restricting access to a controlled group, focusing specifically on how the cyber capabilities can be used defensively rather than offensively and treating that framework as a template for how to release powerful but dangerous models in the future. The broader context makes that framing even more significant. AI generated code is already creating ten times more security vulnerabilities than human-written code, 63% of organizations reported experiencing an AI driven cyberattack in the past 12 months, and traditional signature-based security tools were built for a threat model that no longer describes the attack surface companies are defending against. Mythos represents a genuine leap in what autonomous security reasoning can do and it cuts both ways. The model that can find 250 vulnerabilities in a codebase a prior model rated as mostly clean is also, in the wrong hands, the model that can exploit those 250 vulnerabilities before a human defender has even finished reading the report. Anthropic's phased release strategy is not just a legal or PR decision, it is the most honest signal yet from a frontier lab that safety governance and capability development can no longer be treated as separate workstreams. The question is not whether this technology gets deployed, it is whether the institutions using it defensively stay ahead of the ones who will eventually use it offensively and whether the labs building it can keep those two timelines from inverting.