Europe does not innovate at all! 🇪🇺 Such statements have been appearing recently. Lately, we have been known for the fact that it is difficult to drink from our plastic bottles because of the regulated caps. Fortunately, this is not true. Spoiler: I now have a great strategy how to drink EU-capped bottles! Reach out if you have any problems! 🍼 Just look at the European startup ecosystem and the momentum that accompanies it. Btw. thanks for pushing this @andreasklinger (@euinc_petition) and @HarryStebbings (@ProjectEurope_) and all the contributors of this initiatives. And today I wanted to show you a robotics company that is creating real innovation right in the heart of beautiful Bavaria! 🥨 That's Filics! Founded in 2019 by engineers from the Technical University of Munich. They are developing a unique robot pairing that autonomously lifts and moves pallets using minimal floor space. Each of their units can carry up to 1.2 tons and maneuver with the speed of 1.2 m/s. The system's autonomous mobility allows it to drive completely underneath and through pallets placed on the floor, without requiring turning space, making it a standout solution for high-density warehouses. Future plans include adapting the technology for autonomous truck loading in under five minutes. Last year they have secured €13.5 million in fresh funding to scale its operations. 💰 There's more companies in Europe like this. I hope to put more of them in the spotlight this year, so they get the credits they deserve! 🦾 ~~ ♻️ Join the weekly robotics newsletter, and never miss any news →

Regarding the Anthropic and Watermark issue: What's true, and what's not and whats the real problem. From what ive read, the backlash to Claude’s new text watermark is not about secret tracking but about authorship, quality and who bears the cost of an imperfect detection system. Remember: Anthropic plans to embed an invisible, machine-readable signal directly into text generated by supported Claude models. The first problem is interpretation: A detected watermark does not prove that Claude wrote a document. Anthropic says it may also appear when someone uses Claude to proofread, translate or improve a text originally written by a human. But will an employer, university, client or publisher understand that distinction? “Processed by Claude” could quickly become “written by AI.” This is a real problem! The second concern is quality: Text watermarking works by influencing the model’s token choices to create a detectable statistical pattern. Google’s SynthID research suggests this can be done without a measurable drop in normal quality ratings, although some configurations reduce response diversity. Anthropic has not yet published enough technical detail or independent testing to evaluate its own claim that quality is unaffected. Thats another problem! The third problem is effectiveness: A determined user can weaken a text watermark through extensive rewriting, translation, another model or an unmarked open-source system. Ordinary users asking Claude to polish an email, edit a document or help with code are more likely to retain the mark. The EU regulation even exempts standard editing that does not substantially change the input or its meaning. Anthropic’s broader (!) implementation appears to cover more than that minimum. So the concern is not an invisible spy inside every Claude response but a technically limited provenance signal that may be treated as a definitive judgment about human authorship. That concern is legitimate. (Btw re privacy: The confusion comes from Anthropic saying that its watermark works "at the model level." That does not mean Claude can follow a text back to your account, identity or previous conversations. It means the mark is added while the model generates the text. So it can appear whether you use Claude. ai, Claude Code, the API, AWS or another platform. It works across Claude products, not across your personal sessions.) tl;dr: There are real problems with the watermark and I have serious concerns about them (and I criticize the EU for wanting to regulate something again that is unnecessarily regulated), but they don't lie in privacy, but rather elsewhere as described above.

JUST IN: The Open Secure AI Alliance is developing guidelines for what it's calling the Shared AI Findings Exchange (SAFE), a proposed framework for how organisations report cyber incidents involving AI agents, per Axios.